Being libertarian because you want to smoke pot versus not trusting a authority that has the power to ban it at the state/federal level. My aggravation since being a high schooler is how the former became the household definition, because the mode averaged person has an allergy to cynicism for some gods' forsaken reason. These naive idealists, coinciding with single-issue fuckwads, are so invirtuously useless for society that the proggie NPC has a point when he paints a libertarian as a social loser living in fantasies. Then we have anarcho-capitalism, a designation stemming from humans irresistible urge to subdivide into counterproductive tribes, to be divided and conquered by the outside culture. Any hypothetical minarchist state and ancapistan would be indistinguishable in practice.
Paleoconservative/paleolibertarian would be great brands if they weren't syllablistic vomit doomed to irrelevancy to the average Westerner. Would someone notable start a movement that isn't complete anathema to social marketing, but not so vague as to be amorphously inclusionary? I propose the axiomatic party. Principled yet without delusion, unique, and only slightly more grating to pronounce than "Democratic" or "Republican". I suggest taking a lesson out of Heinlein's History and Moral Philosophy class, sticking to uncomfortable, unambiguous social truths as a serious science. Of course the conditions in Starship Troopers were different, where hard men emerged out of truly hard times, and not bread and circuses limbo we're stuck in.
If my axiomatic ideal were attempted in my lif, neurotypes and grifters would just pervert the meaning like they did to liberalism. Principled will be confused with being a dense zealot. But really, libertarianism needs to rebrand.
all drugs should be legal if you are a landowner
no drugs should be legal if you are a peasant
lolberts are still beholden to the fundamental liberal premise that people are "equal"
This applies to many parts of the philosophy, and I've notice two types of proponents of libertarianism:
People who recognize the hierarchy and think they'll be at the top. (the
kingslandowners)People who pretend this hierarchy won't exist. They're either fooling themselves or knowingly being deceptive to gain more converts to libertarianism.
I like the idea but I don't imagine some utopia where maximum liberty means every man a king.
Equal treatment under the law is a tool to keep people happy. People can superimpose whatever hierarchies on top of that they want. They are wont to do it, and it happens. The principle can be useful. However, I don't think it's "divine" or inherent as certain people claim.
When people already have a high degree of egalitarianism in their culture -- Americans PRIOR to 1776 were some of the freest and most equal people in the world -- you don't want to have a caste system. If your population is made up of Hindus who've known nothing else, you probably do.
The question is always who decides, and you might have some very unhappy hoi polloi if you straight up tell them they have no rights.
I wouldn't propose a hierarchy. I'm simply recognizing that hierarchy is natural law. Enforcing a caste system is as silly as enforcing equality. If someone is able to move up a level in the hierarchy more power to them. That's what liberty allows. It also allows some people to fail.
A functioning hierarchy is better for everyone across the tiers. The lower tiers have something to aspire to, the higher tiers have something to uphold.
Your "drug" example, although absolutely silly, makes sense for voting but not for basic rights. You do understand that if rights are ordained exclusively by taxes combined by land ownership, all the upper echelon have to do is bribe government to regulate self-sustaining business out of existence and buy out all the land? Civil unrest begins and civilization goes bye-bye and you start all over again.
Equality before the law regardless of socio-economic status at least creates some political and societal stability. Why participate in society if you aren't wealthy enough to own land because the value has been inflated to where 80% of society can't afford it? In many states or town jurisdictions you don't even own the land anyway, because your town is in possession of the title deed to legally siphon property taxes.
There is not a right to drugs. There is a lack of right of the government to tell us what to put in our bodies. At least, I don't understand why anyone would give the government that ability.
If you want my opinion, government should have an advisory-only role on drugs. you want to wait for FDA approval ? Go for it. You want to buy some sketch bat shit or fake elephant tusk from China. Go for it.
Getting high is a "basic right"? Where did you get that ridiculous idea?
The idea of "well the rich people will own everything" is commie talk. Wealth is created by one exceptional man then squandered by his progeny in two or three generations. That churn is all of the "redistribution" we need.
If you are in a crappy position you develop a specialized skill or a relationship with someone in a higher position in hopes of taking advantage of an opportunity to move up. Feeling resentful because other people have it better is giving in to the evil whispers of the spirit of Cain.
You participate because you understand that God placed you at your station in life for a reason, even if you don't understand it, and that your reward is in heaven with Him and not on this earth.
You spoke of drug use in the same post as "fundamental liberal premise that people are 'equal'". I assumed you were meaning that universal equality and recreational drug use are concepts that should be treated the same.
Material wealth is temporal and vain, sure, but I believe that accepting fate and hinging one's purpose in life on something that has no tangible observable evidence, aside from "this world is so complex and elegant", can be a life "squandered", but... whatever helps you sleep at night. Not saying God doesn't exist, but I don't think humans truly understand exactly what they receive when life passes.
Sure.
Eh. This is just my take, but I'd personally rephrase to doing drugs or being excessively intoxicated in a public space (or someone else's house) should be illegal.
You obviously need some guiderails, or losers just shit up society, and it is a big failing of the libertarian drug position. The woke cities that implement it spiral further down the toilet really quickly.