PDA

View Full Version : Who disagrees with Darrell Castle?




afwjam
08-10-2016, 01:12 PM
Any disagreements with him on policy or principle? As I understand it he does not wish to codify some of the party planks in federal law porn, gay, etc...

I like that he wants to end the fed, I believe the bankers are behind most of our issues.

jllundqu
08-10-2016, 01:26 PM
They take good policy positions, but they are an openly all-Christian party that:
The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

Considering the fact that this country was founded on 100% secular principles, not biblical ones... I don't see how this party can be in agreement with the Constitution. And which 'biblical principles' are they wishing to restore? There are myriad wonderful stories and tales in the bible that can be drawn on for wisdom, but there are also myriad examples of genocide, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, that are not compatible with a secular government.

Our founders were wise to create a 'deist' document... crediting a 'creator' rather than 'our lord and savior Jesus Christ'.

Still, they are better than the two main options we have today.

jllundqu
08-10-2016, 01:35 PM
I mean for crying out loud... they oppose
the use of third-party assisted reproduction that harms pre-born persons created in the process, involves surrogacy, or involves egg or sperm from donors other than the spouse. How can a party oppose surrogacy, sperm donation, or other assisted pregnancy? My sister had several health issues that prevented pregnancy and thru medical technology, my nephew is well on his way to being born...

kahless
08-10-2016, 01:38 PM
This will be something like my 6th since attempt before getting frustrated and leaving his site. I wanted to see where he stands on trade-TPP and immigration but I can no longer find it on his website. Unbelievable, did they change the website again since now it is even worse than what I said in the other thread a couple days ago. How hard can it be to just add a list of issues and where he stands. The links that are there are vague and link to the "Castle Report" program, whatever that is and I am not sitting through some long podcast video to find the immigration and trade part.

How many times I go there and try to figure out where he stands on issues only to hit a road block, then leave. Fuck it, I'm done trying. Let me know when he gets his act together, ah maybe not since he cannot even put up a campaign website.

afwjam
08-10-2016, 01:38 PM
I'm talking about the man, not the party.

afwjam
08-10-2016, 01:40 PM
This will be something like my 6th since attempt before getting frustrated and leaving his site. I wanted to see where he stands on trade-TPP and immigration but I can no longer find it on his website. Unbelievable, did they change the website again since now it is even worse than what I said in the other thread a couple days ago. How hard can it be to just add a list of issues and where he stands. The links that are there are vague and link to the "Castle Report" program, whatever that is and I am not sitting through some long podcast video to find the immigration and trade part.

How many times I go there and try to figure out where he stands on issues only to hit a road block, then leave. Fuck it, I'm done trying. Let me know when he gets his act together, ah maybe not since he cannot even put up a campaign website.


From wikipedia after googling "Darrell castle TPP":


Edit (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Darrell_Castle&action=edit&section=4)In an interview with Liberty Hangout, Castle has said he is more libertarian (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian) than 2016 Libertarian (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)) presidential nominee (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Libertarian_National_Convention) Gary Johnson (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson).[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Castle#cite_note-LH-9) He describes himself as pro-life (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life),[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Castle#cite_note-LH-9) and opposes federal funding of Planned Parenthood (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood).[10] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Castle#cite_note-10) He opposes the war on drugs (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs).[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Castle#cite_note-LH-9) When it comes to prostitution (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution), gambling (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling), smoking (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking), polygamous relationships, or any other activities made by consenting adults, Castle says he sees no role for the federal government to get involved.[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Castle#cite_note-LH-9) He favors securing the borders.[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Castle#cite_note-LH-9) He describes himself as having a non-interventionist foreign policy.[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Castle#cite_note-LH-9) He favors the United States withdrawing from the United Nations (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations), NATO (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO), TPP (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership), NAFTA (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA), CAFTA (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFTA), Gatt (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_and_Trade), and WTO (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO).[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Castle#cite_note-LH-9) He favors ending the Federal Reserve (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve).[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Castle#cite_note-LH-9)

r3volution 3.0
08-10-2016, 01:48 PM
Any disagreements with him on policy or principle?

-favors coercive labor unions
-favors immigration restrictions
-opposed to assisted suicide

Those are the major problems.

That said, I'd still happily vote for him if Johnson weren't in the race.

But Johnson is in the race, and he's both better on the issues and more likely to accomplish something in practice.

afwjam
08-10-2016, 01:53 PM
-favors coercive labor unions
-favors immigration restrictions
-opposed to assisted suicide

Those are the major problems.

That said, I'd still happily vote for him if Johnson weren't in the race.

But Johnson is in the race, and he's both better on the issues and more likely to accomplish something in practice.

Favors laws for unions, or the unions themselves?
you don't think we should check people off coming through the border?
he is a Christian after all, not sure suicide is a federal issue.

can you explain which issues Johnson is better on?
I believe neither will accomplish anything in practice, so not worth debating.

jllundqu
08-10-2016, 02:00 PM
From wikipedia after googling "Darrell castle TPP":


Edit (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Darrell_Castle&action=edit§ion=4)In an interview with Liberty Hangout, Castle has said he is more libertarian (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian) than 2016 Libertarian (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)) presidential nominee (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Libertarian_National_Convention) Gary Johnson (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson).[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Castle#cite_note-LH-9) He describes himself as pro-life (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life),[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Castle#cite_note-LH-9) and opposes federal funding of Planned Parenthood (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood).[10] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Castle#cite_note-10) He opposes the war on drugs (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs).[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Castle#cite_note-LH-9) When it comes to prostitution (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution), gambling (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling), smoking (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking), polygamous relationships, or any other activities made by consenting adults, Castle says he sees no role for the federal government to get involved.[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Castle#cite_note-LH-9) He favors securing the borders.[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Castle#cite_note-LH-9) He describes himself as having a non-interventionist foreign policy.[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Castle#cite_note-LH-9) He favors the United States withdrawing from the United Nations (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations), NATO (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO), TPP (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership), NAFTA (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA), CAFTA (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFTA), Gatt (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_and_Trade), and WTO (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTO).[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Castle#cite_note-LH-9) He favors ending the Federal Reserve (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve).[9] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrell_Castle#cite_note-LH-9)


They (Constitution Party) support the Drug War.
They oppose gay marriage, partner benefits, homosexual adoption, and anything that isn't 'biblical'
They oppose gambling because....bible
They want the federal government to ban porn because....bible
They oppose prostitution because.....bible
Just read the party platform. It's far too exclusive and overtly religious to ever break into national politics at a high level.

Castle seems to break from the party platform on many of these issues.

afwjam
08-10-2016, 02:01 PM
They (Constitution Party) support the Drug War.
They oppose gay marriage, partner benefits, homosexual adoption, and anything that isn't 'biblical'
They oppose gambling because....bible
They want the federal government to ban porn because....bible

Castle seems to break from the party platform on many of these issues.

He breaks on all those issues.

jllundqu
08-10-2016, 02:01 PM
He breaks on all those issues.

Interesting he is at the helm of the party then, huh?

afwjam
08-10-2016, 02:03 PM
Interesting he is at the helm of the party then, huh?

Means to an end, kinda like the Pauls in GOP.

jllundqu
08-10-2016, 02:05 PM
They (Constitution Party) support the Drug War.
They oppose gay marriage, partner benefits, homosexual adoption, and anything that isn't 'biblical'
They oppose gambling because....bible
They want the federal government to ban porn because....bible
They oppose prostitution because.....bible
Just read the party platform. It's far too exclusive and overtly religious to ever break into national politics at a high level.

Castle seems to break from the party platform on many of these issues.

I like the man.... the Party... not so much. So yeah. Perhaps means to an end.

I'm still voting Johnson this go round. I want the LP to break 15% in the hopes that future elections might field a better candidate and get more national attention.

presence
08-10-2016, 02:35 PM
These answers generally pass my test:


Economic issues (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic)

Should employers be required to pay men and women the same salary for the same job? stats (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/935311236) discuss (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965649#discuss)

Darrell Castle’s answer: No, the government should never determine what a private business should pay employees S (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic#)

Should all welfare recipients be tested for drugs? stats (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/721312399) discuss (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965649#discuss)
Darrell Castle’s answer: No, it is a privacy violation and a violation of human dignity S (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic#)

Should physically and mentally capable adults on welfare be required to work? stats (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/46496957) discuss (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965649#discuss)
Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes S (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic#)

Should the government raise the federal minimum wage? stats (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965649) discuss (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965649#discuss)
Darrell Castle’s answer: No S (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic#)

Should businesses be required to provide paid leave for full-time employees during the birth of a child or sick family member? stats (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/1476448702) discuss (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965649#discuss)
Darrell Castle’s answer: No, private businesses should decide the amount of competitive incentives they offer to employees instead of a government mandate S (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic#)

Should the government make cuts to public spending in order to reduce the national debt? stats (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/488729614) discuss (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965649#discuss)
Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes S (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic#)

Should the U.S. reduce corporate income tax rates? stats (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/313813617) discuss (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965649#discuss)
Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes, but I would prefer to abolish corporate income taxes S (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic#)

Do you believe labor unions help or hurt the economy? stats (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/657250856) discuss (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965649#discuss)
Darrell Castle’s answer: I support the right of workers to collectively bargain but I oppose public service unions S (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic#)

Should the government require businesses to pay salaried employees, making up to $46k/year, time-and-a-half for overtime hours? stats (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/2335853039) discuss (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965649#discuss)
Darrell Castle’s answer: No, what private business pays to its employees is non of the government's business S (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic#)

Should the government increase the tax rate on profits earned from the sale of stocks, bonds, and real estate? stats (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/1311426661) discuss (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965649#discuss)
Darrell Castle’s answer: No S (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic#)

Should the Federal Reserve Bank be audited by Congress? stats (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/1650316329) discuss (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965649#discuss)
Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes, but I would prefer to abolish it and return to the gold standard S (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic#)

Do you support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)? stats (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/964547085) discuss (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965649#discuss)
Darrell Castle’s answer: No, it surrenders U.S. sovereignty to international bureaucrats, corporations, and foreign governments none of which are accountable to U.S. citizens S (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic#)

Should pension plans for federal, state, and local government workers be transitioned into privately managed accounts? stats (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/315815014) discuss (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965649#discuss)
Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes tax payers have carried the burden long enough and it is time to let the market run pensions and relieve the taxpayers' responsibility S (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic#)

Should the government subsidize farmers? stats (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965576) discuss (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965649#discuss)
Darrell Castle’s answer: No, end all government subsidies and let the free market run its course S (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic#)

Would you favor an increased sales tax in order to reduce property taxes? stats (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/651146137) discuss (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965649#discuss)
Darrell Castle’s answer: No, I oppose all tax increases S (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic#)

Should citizens be allowed to save or invest their money in offshore bank accounts? stats (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/2244664511) discuss (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965649#discuss)
Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes, where U.S. citizens invest their money is none of the government's business S (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic#)

Should the U.S. government bailout Puerto Rico? stats (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/2297823809) discuss (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965649#discuss)
Darrell Castle’s answer: No S (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic#)

Should the government classify Bitcoin as a legal currency? stats (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/1569980570) discuss (https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965649#discuss)
Darrell Castle’s answer: Yes, all currencies should compete fairly including bitcoin S (https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic#)
https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/darrell-castle/economic

adissa
08-10-2016, 02:38 PM
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fpdvudv-dJ0/maxresdefault.jpg

William Tell
08-10-2016, 03:05 PM
He breaks on all those issues.

As far as I can tell every single Johnson voter here is supporting Johnson over Castle because they like the name of the LP. Issues are not part of the equation. Sure, they all know the LP hasn't nominated a real libertarian in over a decade. But next time!

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. But it's just like Republicans, they know the GOP hasn't nominated a real conservative in decades.

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/peanuts/images/a/a0/1107charlie_brown_lucy_football.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100523172400

jllundqu
08-10-2016, 03:11 PM
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fpdvudv-dJ0/maxresdefault.jpg

NO, as a matter of fact, it isn't. And your constant assertion that I, among others, am a Hillary supporter is a personal insult to my integrity.... (mod edit)

r3volution 3.0
08-10-2016, 03:17 PM
Favors laws for unions, or the unions themselves?

http://themarmaladesandwich.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/is-darrell-castle-more-libertarian-than.html


Host: "Do you believe labor unions help or hurt the economy?"

Castle: "I support the right of workers to collectively bargain but I oppose public service unions."

He believes that coercive labor unions should be legal, albeit not in the public sector.


you don't think we should check people off coming through the border?

He's not just talking about border security: screening for criminal ties, infectious disease, etc.

He favors immigration quotas.


Host: "Should the government increase or decrease the amount of temporary work visas given to high-skilled immigrant workers?"

Castle: "Decrease"

*from the same source


he is a Christian after all, not sure suicide is a federal issue.

It's unlibertarian, regardless of whether it's a federal issue or not.


can you explain which issues Johnson is better on?

Well, first, he doesn't support coercive labor unions or immigration restrictions, and does support assisted suicide - those are the big issues.

But he's also better on drugs, calling for legalization rather than mere decriminalization.

And he's for raising he SS retirement age, to which Castle is opposed.


I believe neither will accomplish anything in practice, so not worth debating.

Johnson will get the highest vote total the LP has ever had, generating all kinds of good press.

He might get 5%, which would effectively turn the LP into a viable third party going forward.

I consider those goals worth pursuing.

William Tell
08-10-2016, 03:24 PM
Ron Paul opposes assisted suicide, as lovers of liberty should. Without life, there is no liberty.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oxrx2ZWh704


Ron Paul, US Representative (R-TX), stated the following on Oct. 27, 1999, during his House floor speech against the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999 (H.R. 2260), available at www.gpo.gov:

"I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.

I disagree with the Oregon law [Death With Dignity Act]. If I were in Oregon, I would vote against that law...

If we can come here in the Congress and decide that the Oregon law is bad, what says we cannot go to Texas and get rid of the Texas law that protects life and prohibits euthanasia...

As bad as the Oregon law is, this is not the way we should deal with the problem. This bill applies the same principle as Roe versus Wade...

I believe that nobody can be more pro-life than I am, nobody who could condemn the trends of what is happening in this country in the movement toward euthanasia and the chances that one day euthanasia will be determined by the national government because of economic conditions. But this bill does not deal with life and makes a difficult situation much worse."
Oct. 27, 1999 Ron Paul (http://2012election.procon.org/view.source.election.php?sourceID=11140)
[Editor's note: In addition to the above "Con" statement, Ron Paul, on Dec. 22, 2011, signed the "Personhood Republican Presidential Candidate Pledge," available at www.personhoodusa.com, which contained the following language: "I oppose assisted suicide, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and procedures that intentionally destroy developing human beings."]


http://2012election.procon.org/view.answers.election.php?questionID=1770#ron-paul

r3volution 3.0
08-10-2016, 03:48 PM
Ron Paul opposes assisted suicide, as lovers of liberty should. Without life, there is no liberty.

Then's Ron wrong.

The issue is very simple.

Suicide (assisted or otherwise) violates no one's property rights.

Therefore, it is permissible.

Period.

If you're going to outlaw suicide to protect life, better outlaw butter and hard cheese too, right?

euphemia
08-10-2016, 04:58 PM
But he's also better on drugs, calling for legalization rather than mere decriminalization.


Legalization of some things while keeping other things illegal or restricted is not a better position. I can't buy OTC allergy drugs without a lot of regulatory red tape. I should be able to have a decongestant when I need it, which is almost every day. If husband and I both need one, we are out of luck.

r3volution 3.0
08-10-2016, 05:18 PM
Legalization of some things while keeping other things illegal or restricted is not a better position.

That's absurd.

Every time a bad law is repealed, that's a gain for liberty - even if there remain other bad laws on the books.

...this should not require explanation.


I can't buy OTC allergy drugs without a lot of regulatory red tape. I should be able to have a decongestant when I need it, which is almost every day. If husband and I both need one, we are out of luck.

Is Castle talking about eliminating that red tape?

If not, then what's your point? How is this relevant to a comparison of Johnson and Castle?

euphemia
08-10-2016, 05:49 PM
Decriminalizing might not ease restrictions on OTC meds used as components, but it might help. I just feel like you are being a little short sighted. If the govenrment officially legalizes a substance, it opens the door to regulation. It seems to me that decriminalization is the less government route.

r3volution 3.0
08-10-2016, 06:12 PM
Decriminalizing might not ease restrictions on OTC meds used as components, but it might help. I just feel like you are being a little short sighted. If the govenrment officially legalizes a substance, it opens the door to regulation. It seems to me that decriminalization is the less government route.

If a substance is decriminalized, it is regulated - so much so that it's still illegal to produce, sell, or posses it (the penalties have just been reduced). The regulation following legalization is going to be much less onerous - it will be legal to produce, sell, or possess it, provided one has the license, pays the tax, etc, etc (as with alcohol or tobacco). It's pretty clear which is better from a libertarian point of view.

Lovecraftian4Paul
08-10-2016, 07:29 PM
Castle is a good guy, much more palatable than Johnson. If it weren't for Trump, he'd be getting my vote. I was glad to pick Baldwin in 2008 for the GE.

euphemia
08-10-2016, 07:36 PM
r3v, I think we are not so far apart on this. We are approaching the same issue from two different sides. I don't think legalization will stay ahead of crimes associated with drugs. This is my concern.

r3volution 3.0
08-10-2016, 08:13 PM
r3v, I think we are not so far apart on this. We are approaching the same issue from two different sides. I don't think legalization will stay ahead of crimes associated with drugs. This is my concern.

I'm not sure what you mean.

euphemia
08-10-2016, 09:03 PM
I'm not sure what you mean.

Crimes associated with drugs: gang activity, robbery, murder. Those things will still happen as long as people are enslaved by drugs. People become addicted to legal, controlled substances and commit horrible crimes. These things pose a risk to me. I am just not willing to take another step toward more of that. I can go to decriminalization of personal use and possession, but that's about all. I see what some people feel is a restriction of personal liberty on my part, but I can live with that. The medical industrial complex and the insurance industrial complex have taken away a lot of personal liberty for people to own and use particular drugs for their own health maintenance. With insurance, I have an asthma inhaler that is $80 a pop. If I have to give up a day's pay every month because everyone's liberty has been restricted, then I am not about to agree to legalize recreational drugs when the market for production and distribution is basically a black market.

It's like taxes. I would not vote for a national sales tax until the income tax is repealed for all time. Government cannot be trusted, and unless the medical drug market deregulated, then I will not be for the recreational market to be legal. I am never going to use a recreational drug stronger than a glass of wine, so legalizing recreational drugs does not extend liberty to me. I need a deregulated medical market so I can afford the meds I need to breathe.

I hope that makes some sense to you. Liberty is for all, not for some, and not just for fun.

r3volution 3.0
08-10-2016, 09:17 PM
Crimes associated with drugs: gang activity, robbery, murder. Those things will still happen as long as people are enslaved by drugs.

Most of that is caused by the prohibition of drugs, in the same way that alcohol prohibition brought us Al Capone.

Some is caused by drug use itself, it's true, but prohibition doesn't solve that problem.


People become addicted to legal, controlled substances and commit horrible crimes. These things pose a risk to me. I am just not willing to take another step toward more of that.

Legalization isn't a step toward more of that. It's a step toward less of it.


I am not about to agree to legalize recreational drugs when the market for production and distribution is basically a black market.

It's a black market because of prohibition.

The black market for alcohol shut down the day after the repeal of the 18th Amendment.


I am never going to use a recreational drug stronger than a glass of wine, so legalizing recreational drugs does not extend liberty to me. I need a deregulated medical market so I can afford the meds I need to breathe.

I appreciate your frustration, but refusing to support efforts to extend liberty to others doesn't help you increase your own.

Origanalist
08-10-2016, 10:54 PM
If a substance is decriminalized, it is regulated - so much so that it's still illegal to produce, sell, or posses it (the penalties have just been reduced). The regulation following legalization is going to be much less onerous - it will be legal to produce, sell, or possess it, provided one has the license, pays the tax, etc, etc (as with alcohol or tobacco). It's pretty clear which is better from a libertarian point of view.

What you just wrote makes no sense at all. If it's still illegal to produce, sell or possess it then how is it "decriminalized"?

Origanalist
08-10-2016, 11:00 PM
Crimes associated with drugs: gang activity, robbery, murder. Those things will still happen as long as people are enslaved by drugs. People become addicted to legal, controlled substances and commit horrible crimes. These things pose a risk to me. I am just not willing to take another step toward more of that. I can go to decriminalization of personal use and possession, but that's about all. I see what some people feel is a restriction of personal liberty on my part, but I can live with that. The medical industrial complex and the insurance industrial complex have taken away a lot of personal liberty for people to own and use particular drugs for their own health maintenance. With insurance, I have an asthma inhaler that is $80 a pop. If I have to give up a day's pay every month because everyone's liberty has been restricted, then I am not about to agree to legalize recreational drugs when the market for production and distribution is basically a black market.

It's like taxes. I would not vote for a national sales tax until the income tax is repealed for all time. Government cannot be trusted, and unless the medical drug market deregulated, then I will not be for the recreational market to be legal. I am never going to use a recreational drug stronger than a glass of wine, so legalizing recreational drugs does not extend liberty to me. I need a deregulated medical market so I can afford the meds I need to breathe.

I hope that makes some sense to you. Liberty is for all, not for some, and not just for fun.

No, it makes no sense at all. Do you not realize the gang activity, robbery and murder are caused in the majority because prohibition creates a black market?

euphemia
08-10-2016, 11:10 PM
I disagree with you. Legalization will change none of that..

I will never be for legalization of recreational drugs until the market for real medicine is deregulated.

Origanalist
08-10-2016, 11:12 PM
All this fear about the Constitution Party baffles me. We have a liberty candidate heading the ticket that is head and shoulders above the the guy leading the so called Liberty Party despite all the Johnsonsplainin. The republicans were atrocious as a party when Ron was running but most here supported him anyway.

Origanalist
08-10-2016, 11:15 PM
I disagree with you. Legalization will change none of that..

I will never be for legalization of recreational drugs until the market for real medicine is deregulated.

Can't you be for both? That would seem to be the logical thing. And bs on your statement that legalization will change none of that. It would literally be impossible for it not to.

euphemia
08-10-2016, 11:41 PM
No, I can't be for both. Until the medical market has been deregulated and chemo doesn't cost a $20K a month, then I am not about to support legalization of *recreational* drugs. Happy for people not to go to jail for personal use, but as long as sick people are deprived of their necessary drugs thanks to the government's manipulation of the insurance industry and medical markets, then I think the priorities should be on deregulation of the medical market.

Origanalist
08-10-2016, 11:47 PM
No, I can't be for both. Until the medical market has been deregulated and chemo doesn't cost a $20K a month, then I am not about to support legalization of *recreational* drugs. Happy for people not to go to jail for personal use, but as long as sick people are deprived of their necessary drugs thanks to the government's manipulation of the insurance industry and medical markets, then I think the priorities should be on deregulation of the medical market.

Well get on with your bad self then. There is no civil answer I can give to such a position so I will just let your post speak for itself.

r3volution 3.0
08-11-2016, 02:21 AM
What you just wrote makes no sense at all. If it's still illegal to produce, sell or possess it then how is it "decriminalized"?

Ask the guy who coined the term.

When people talk about decriminalization, they're usually talking about reducing (not eliminating) the penalties (and usually just for possession).

...hence the contrast with legalization (which would mean eliminating the penalties altogether, and for production and sale as well).

Top result for "marijuana decriminalization" in Google News:

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/davidson%20/2016/08/10/nashville-consider-decriminalization-small-amounts-marijuana/88536326/


A legislative push has mounted in Nashville that seeks to reduce the penalty for individuals who are found possessing or casually exchanging small amounts of marijuana to allow them to avoid a criminal record. A newly filed ordinance sponsored by three Metro Council members would lessen the penalty for people who knowingly possess or exchange a half-ounce of marijuana (14.175 grams) or less to a $50 civil penalty. A court also could choose to suspend the civil penalty and instead mandate 10 hours of community service.

Origanalist
08-11-2016, 06:16 AM
Ask the guy who coined the term.

When people talk about decriminalization, they're usually talking about reducing (not eliminating) the penalties (and usually just for possession).

...hence the contrast with legalization (which would mean eliminating the penalties altogether, and for production and sale as well).

Top result for "marijuana decriminalization" in Google News:

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/davidson%20/2016/08/10/nashville-consider-decriminalization-small-amounts-marijuana/88536326/

Thanks, it was a long day and my mind was in basic English mode. :)

Krugminator2
08-11-2016, 07:02 AM
I disagree with you. Legalization will change none of that..

I will never be for legalization of recreational drugs until the market for real medicine is deregulated.

Moral case: Your body is private property. You should be able to with your property as you please.

Economic reasoning: If you restrict supply by making drugs illegal, price goes up. Higher prices create an outsized profit opportunity. In this case the entrepreneurs capitalizing on the opportunity are people, like El Chapo, who build elaborate distribution systems and the the gangs who sell the drugs El Chapo. Gangs and distributors operate outside the law and settle disputes with violence.

Higher priced drugs also mean it is more difficult for addicts to get their fix so they often get involved in crime. Addicts steal. Addicts also become drug dealers. They create new addicts by recruiting people to do drugs to pay for their own habit.

fisharmor
08-11-2016, 07:40 AM
I mean for crying out loud... they oppose How can a party oppose surrogacy, sperm donation, or other assisted pregnancy? My sister had several health issues that prevented pregnancy and thru medical technology, my nephew is well on his way to being born...

So nobody else addressed this?
In vitro fertilization creates several embryos and tries to implant them all.
If that is what your sister did, then your nephew is on his way at the expense of a half dozen destroyed lives.
If we allow for wanton creation and destruction of embryos, there is no logical reason to prevent any abortion, outside of SCOTUS' idiotic, illogical, and novel timeframe rulings.

Regarding the CP in general... they wish to be judged by their Christian chops, and not by any abstract governance.
So I don't say this because I want to, but because THEY want me to....

They are heretics. They are splinters of splinters of true Christianity. They belong to groups which cannot be shown to have existed for more than a couple hundred years.

More to the governance point... if they are perfectly comfortable simply making shit up wrt their faith, then they have no standing to decry those who make shit up wrt abortion.

Bryan
08-11-2016, 09:01 AM
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fpdvudv-dJ0/maxresdefault.jpg

I presume this is a joke give the image and all. Please let me know if not.

euphemia
08-11-2016, 10:39 AM
I don't think Darrell Castle supports the entire platform because he is constitutionally consistent on his personal positions. I don't think he would want to ban medically-assisted fertility.

Some of the planks in the party platform date back to its founding. It originally sprang from conservative Christian roots. That doesn't mean they don't include unbelievers or that some of those planks would be dropped or modified with the influx of new members.

I don't think this particular branch of fertility discussion will ever become law. Where I come down on this is if a family has their own means to pay for fertility assistance, then go for it. But if you are a single woman on welfare with an outlier friend who talks you into IVF and you have eight babies, then no, I'm not in favor of that.

I'm so glad you all are at least giving Castle and the CP a look. Intellectual curiosity is something I admire. I think there is a lot of potential with the CP if enough people decide they want a party that is for constitutional liberty.

69360
08-11-2016, 02:04 PM
No problem here with Castle or the CP on policy, they are close enough for me. They just are going nowhere. They won't even get 1% of the vote. Johnson and the LP are doing much better so I am going with them.

younglibertarian
08-11-2016, 09:45 PM
Castle seems to be the best choice atm, Johnson just makes me cringe

LibertyEagle
08-12-2016, 03:24 AM
No problem here with Castle or the CP on policy, they are close enough for me. They just are going nowhere. They won't even get 1% of the vote. Johnson and the LP are doing much better so I am going with them.

Uh huh, yes, but Johnson/Weld have sold out. They are pro-Trans Pacific Partnership and at least Weld, is anti-gun.

69360
08-12-2016, 08:32 AM
Uh huh, yes, but Johnson/Weld have sold out. They are pro-Trans Pacific Partnership and at least Weld, is anti-gun.

For at least the 100th time. You don't care about Johnson's purity. You are for Trump. Why do you persist in this, by now everyone still here is on to you.

jmdrake
08-15-2016, 11:20 AM
They take good policy positions, but they are an openly all-Christian party that:

Considering the fact that this country was founded on 100% secular principles, not biblical ones... I don't see how this party can be in agreement with the Constitution. And which 'biblical principles' are they wishing to restore? There are myriad wonderful stories and tales in the bible that can be drawn on for wisdom, but there are also myriad examples of genocide, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, that are not compatible with a secular government.

Our founders were wise to create a 'deist' document... crediting a 'creator' rather than 'our lord and savior Jesus Christ'.

Still, they are better than the two main options we have today.

You're hair splitting. Thomas Jefferson's "deist Bible" was simply a stripped down Christian Bible. So you're still left with a country founded on "Biblical principles". A country founded on "secular principles" would have no mention of a creator at all. Think Soviet Union for example. Or perhaps post revolution France.

jmdrake
08-15-2016, 11:21 AM
For at least the 100th time. You don't care about Johnson's purity. You are for Trump. Why do you persist in this, by now everyone still here is on to you.

QFT. Trump is as anti-gun as Weld.

jmdrake
08-15-2016, 11:26 AM
No problem here with Castle or the CP on policy, they are close enough for me. They just are going nowhere. They won't even get 1% of the vote. Johnson and the LP are doing much better so I am going with them.

At this point I'm voting Castle though I see the allure of voting Johnson. (Hoping to get 15% for better ballot access). Seriously it seems that all the Libertarian Party cares about these days is who can get the most name recognition. The Peterson guy was 100% better than Johnson on the actual issues. Bob Barr sucked too. This will be my third election voting Constitution Party in the general. I wouldn't have voted Virgil Goode last time if I had researched more and saw he was a warmonger. But Castle seems pretty good. Chuck Baldwin was freaking awesome! If I wanted to just vote pragmatically I could vote Trump or Clinton because they both suck just as bad.

phill4paul
08-15-2016, 04:28 PM
Well get on with your bad self then. There is no civil answer I can give to such a position so I will just let your post speak for itself.

And it does. in volumes.

phill4paul
08-15-2016, 04:35 PM
Ask the guy who coined the term.

When people talk about decriminalization, they're usually talking about reducing (not eliminating) the penalties (and usually just for possession).

...hence the contrast with legalization (which would mean eliminating the penalties altogether, and for production and sale as well).

Top result for "marijuana decriminalization" in Google News:

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/davidson%20/2016/08/10/nashville-consider-decriminalization-small-amounts-marijuana/88536326/

Yup. That one causes a bit of confusion and has with me. That is why I promote "de-regulation."

de·reg·u·late
dēˈreɡyo͝oˌlāt/
verb
remove regulations or restrictions from.