Heck, Lib. Define ‘asset forfeiture’ a little more specifically and I’ll take a swing at that for you.
Priceguy, my argument is based upon history. If people were truly (as you believe) stupid history would not be an ever-rising tide of progress. I’m not a hunter-gatherer and neither are you.
And drugs are freely available. In many jurisdications there’s only lip service to stopping the trade.
I’d also be willing to argue that drug education is not as thorough now as I would like it to be under a more ‘practical’ system.
Or how about if you get drunk on beer and cave some guy’s skull in with a pool cue? Should beer be illegal?
I am a working person and and see no limit under our current system to the extent to which I can practically improve myself. I can continue to get tech certifications, pursue training, higher education, improve physically, mentally, and vocationally to the limits of my capabilities. I don’t see any obstacles beyond those of my own design. What about our current system do you see as an obstacle to my ability to improve?
I didn’t say there was. Just that a practical government should have that as it’s goal for ‘benefitting the working class’.
Lib, I’m still working on the ‘asset forfeiture’ issue. That site you linked to isn’t what I’d call…unbiased. So I’m looking for the other side of the coin at the moment.
Jonathan–
Thanks for the thoughts. It’s great to see everyone calmly discussing politics for once.
I have some questions and a thought for you.
The question is, how does PL treat immigration in the real US? Can anyone come here? Or are there quotas? Or should the gates be closed?
The thought is that I’m having a little trouble seeing how your philosophy is coherent. It seems like you’re happy with some non-libertarian aspects of the US because they’re entrenched in the constitution or that the status quo is too hard to change, or works well enough.
I agree that an ivory tower discussion has little practical application, but how does your purely practical approach differ from mine, regardless of what motivates it?
My two cents on legal and illegal drugs:
I work with physicians who are interested in antibiotics. These are a real quandary, because for the individual, the benefit of an antibiotic for any one ailment is undeniable-- if no bacteria, then no harm, if bacteria, then good. [Assume no side effects.] However, on the mass scale, the more common the use of the drug, the more resistance, which is bad. Leaving aside the question of whether people are idiots, let’s assume everyone is smart.
How does a person decide whether to use antibiotics or not? Smart people can decide both ways. The current system uses a rational (though far from perfect) means to decide whether taking the drug makes sense.
Interestingly, there has been a decrease in antibiotic prescriptions in recent years, showing that the status quo is doing OK on this front.
A similar line of reasoning applies to vaccines: on the individual level, there comes a point when the disease is so rare that the risk from the vaccine exceeds the risk from the prevented disease. However, if you let everyone decide for themselve whether they want to be vaccinated, no one will, and the disease becomes more common. (Under pure libertarianism, I don’t think this is a problem, since the unimmunized are the only ones who suffer, but in PL, society ultimately pays for the health care of the unimmunized.)
For illegal drugs, I agree with you, but I think it’s unreasonable to assume that as many people use them now as would if they were all legalized. Libertarian assertions to the contrary, people do in fact think for themselves even now, and illegal drugs provide a stronger deterrent than legalized drugs would. I think more people would use them, but at least we’d be able to tax them and use the proceeds for rehabilitation and health care for the users.
Actually, it is from About.Com, purt’ near the least political site out there. But here’s one from Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute that includes citations of case law.
OK, my mistake. Would you consider our current system an example of PL?
When I look at history I see luck and chance, and a few brains making a few inventions while, around them, other people do their best to annihilate the human race (and using those few inventions to their fullest for that purpose, by the way).
In that case, that is what we have to change. If free access to drugs is a problem, we restrict access to drugs. Not make access even freer, if that’s a word.
I’d vote for it. Beer has no positive effects whatsoever and causes both direct and indirect damages. I see no reason to have it available. Yes, I like it, and yes, I’d miss it, but avoiding its detrimental effects is worth drinking orange juice at the pub, and being healthier for it.
But why ought your evalution of “worth” be imposed upon us all?
Because it’s not subjective. Beer has bad effects. This is known. It has no good effects, unless you count a slight increase in social ability which, should you start trusting it, you’ll be unable to do without. This is known. I don’t see the problem.
By the way, I’m not saying we should ban beer right now. It’d be like Prohibition all over again, which was certainly a Very Bad Thing. I’m just saying that a beerless world would be better. How to get there from here… umm… give me a couple of centuries and I’ll come up with something.
Time out, children. Let me answer some questions before you start brawling.
But he started it!!!
Well, I’d hate to be thought ‘coherent’! 
On immigration I’d throw the doors open. With this caveat…the incentive for immigration based upon the modern American welfare state should end. By providing an opportunity for people to better their lives through work and acheivement society has fulfilled its obligation. There should be very little safety net for those who come here and fail. If this sounds hard-hearted (and it does, even to me) all I can say is that there’s a limited amount of societal resources to go around and not everyone can benefit.
On your reply regarding antibiotics… I’d have to say that I don’t see it working now. The last thing I read about it (in The Washington Post a year or so ago, as I recall) indicated that while some physicians were prescribing antibi’s less frequently those patients who still wanted them were capable of getting them from another doctor. Therefore if the use of such are truly declining then I believe it’s from education of the patients that leads to reduced demand. And I think that shows evidence in my favor that education leads to more rational choices by the public.
I’d also disagree that without mandatory vaccinations ‘no one will’. In many jurisdictions now parents can opt out of vaccinations for their children (when most people get immunized) but they don’t. Again, results have proven to people that vaccinations pay off and they’ve accepted them as a societal standard.
And again with the illegal drugs…yes, more people will try drugs if they’re legalized. Heck, as many as use nicotine now. 
But the relative cost savings in interdiction efforts combined with the increase in the tax base and the undercutting of drug dealers prices would, I think, offset those losses.
Lib,
Having read up on ‘asset forfeiture’ I’m with you in disagreeing with it.
The rules (laws) we have in place should be strictly defined. Yes, they can put rules on the books that say if someone is arrested and convicted of using a car to pick up a prostitute that car can be confiscated as part of the punishment. (I won’t get into the legalization of prostitution here) But just taking someone’s car because they were arrested doesn’t work for me. No conviction, no penalty.
The only reason I’m against complete legalisation of all drugs is that I imagine what the likes of the tobacco companies would do if they had a product like heroin to sell. I really wouldn’t like seeing billboards with big ads saying “Marlboro Smack: Have you had your hit today?” At least drug dealers can’t advertise.
I do however think that some steps towards legalisation would be helpful in that it would destroy the black market. I just wouldn’t be comfortable with complete legalisation, though.
Or, as I see it, that people listen to their doctors, and doctors have been getting more educated. I don’t think the average patient knows why the doctor prescribes or doesn’t prescribe a certain medication. He/she just accepts it.
I think those last six words are key. Vaccination is the standard; it’s what people do. Like going to church or buying the New York Times, people just do it because it’s what you do. It doesn’t have anything to do with parents scrutinizing medical journals and finding out on their own.
So a bunch of new drug deaths are acceptable if we save a dime in the process? Money was never the reason I wanted drugs to be illegal (and I know the reply wasn’t to me, but I’ll pop this in anyway).