My THREE QUESTION test for Chuck Baldwin.

[ValidusCustodiae]

Quick question...what would you rather have, the Patriot Act or the War on Drugs. Me??? I'd take the War on Drugs; no questions asked. At least they get a warrant to seize your stash and to tap your phoneline. With the Patriot Act, hell, they don't bother, they'll just throw you in jail if they have any suspicion.

All of a sudden we're supposed to choose what parts of Freedom to defend?

 

[ValidusCustodiae]

How can you attack Menthol Patch for wanting to know some of Baldwin's positions without being hypocritical? These are legitimate questions that some of you are trying to demonize him for. He is holding whoever he supports for President to a standard, one I happen to agree with. While I plan on voting for Chuck to send a message, I will always remain vocal of my opposition to government at any level interfering with personal freedom. The earlier quote from Shulgin was magnificent.

It is the freedom over what we do with our own bodies from which all other freedoms spring. To speak, sing, or write freely, we must be free to use our bodies. This is true for the right to freely bear arms, to freely assemble, and for the myriad rights unenumerated in the Bill of Rights also. To falter in the defense of personal freedom over one's body is to sacrifice all subsisting freedoms.

I'm sure M Patch already recognizes that there is very little chance Baldwin would answer him here. I think he was trying to see if anyone had any references to Baldwin answering these questions.

 

[mconder]

NO, I think that voting for someone ONLY if they will legalize dope and prostitution, release all offenders, and allow book burning - is self-serving and very narrow, in my flea bitten opinion.

No doubt...these people are anarchists in disguise. I'd like to remind them that all of these things were illegal during the period of greatest prosperity for this country.

 

[Menthol Patch]

How can you attack Menthol Patch for wanting to know some of Baldwin's positions without being hypocritical? These are legitimate questions that some of you are trying to demonize him for. He is holding whoever he supports for President to a standard, one I happen to agree with. While I plan on voting for Chuck to send a message, I will always remain vocal of my opposition to government at any level interfering with personal freedom. The earlier quote from Shulgin was magnificent.

It is the freedom over what we do with our own bodies from which all other freedoms spring. To speak, sing, or write freely, we must be free to use our bodies. This is true for the right to freely bear arms, to freely assemble, and for the myriad rights unenumerated in the Bill of Rights also. To falter in the defense of personal freedom over one's body is to sacrifice all subsisting freedoms.

I'm sure M Patch already recognizes that there is very little chance Baldwin would answer him here. I think he was trying to see if anyone had any references to Baldwin answering these questions.

User Give.Me.Liberty is going to be asking Chuck Baldwin my three questions this friday.

Thanks for the kind words.

 

[Menthol Patch]

No doubt...these people are anarchists in disguise. I'd like to remind them that all of these things were illegal during the period of greatest prosperity for this country.

No, I'm not an anarchist. I believe in small government.

The fact is any government that punishes people when they have harmed no one is illegitimate.

 

[Menthol Patch]

By the way, I want to say it again.... I'm a Christian. I think prostitution, recreational drug usage, and burning the Bible is a sin. However, as a libertarian I will fight to defend people's right to sin (as long as they are not hurting anyone else in the process).

 

[tmaddox]

Before I could support Baldwin I would have to ask three very important questions.

1) Do you support legalizing all drugs and pardoning non violent drug users?

2) Do you support legalizing victimless crimes such as prostitution in which no one's rights are violated?

3) Do you support freedom of speech to the extent that you would support the right of individuals to openly burn (as long as there is not a public safety issue) the sacred books of any religion such as the Koran and the Christian Bible?

If Baldwin answers YES to all three then I will take back my accusation that he is a theocrat and someone that would continue the war on drugs.

Will you take this test Chuck Baldwin?

Hate to break the news to you but legalizing all drugs, prostitution and pardoning all drug offenders is not within the Constitutional authority of the President or the national government.

Yes, he can and has pledged to end the drug war and national laws on drugs (because its for the states to decide).

He has stated many times that those issues are state issues.

For the national government to force states to legalize drugs and prostitution they will need just as much authority as they do banning them!

In doing so you do not become more libertarian or constitutional, you do not lessen the power of the national government. You only change the focus. It would still be wrong to force a state to allow these things. Allow the states to choose and decide their own laws, that is what Chuck Baldwin will do.

 

[tmaddox]

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

James Madison, Federalist Papers #45

 

[Menthol Patch]

Hate to break the news to you but legalizing all drugs, prostitution and pardoning all drug offenders is not within the Constitutional authority of the President or the national government.

Yes, he can and has pledged to end the drug war and national laws on drugs (because its for the states to decide).

He has stated many times that those issues are state issues.

For the national government to force states to legalize drugs and prostitution they will need just as much authority as they do banning them!

In doing so you do not become more libertarian or constitutional, you do not lessen the power of the national government. You only change the focus. It would still be wrong to force a state to allow these things. Allow the states to choose and decide their own laws, that is what Chuck Baldwin will do.

The constitution is not perfect. Although it's a very great document it's lacking in some areas. When it comes to issues of freedom the Federal Government has a duty to intervene when innocent people are being imprisoned when they have harmed no one else. I actually become MORE libertarian by demanding that the Federal Government get involved when it comes to the war on drugs, prostitution, freedom of speech issues, etc.

I'm all for state rights when it comes to most issues. However, when innocent people being imprisoned for hurting no one the federal government should get involved.

Otherwise, I hope you are very happy if a family member of yours is given life in prison for eating fatty foods which breaks up his or her family and traumatizes his or her children.

 

[Menthol Patch]

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

James Madison, Federalist Papers #45

I could care less.

When it comes to issues of freedom the federal government should get involved.

 

[Havax]

Before I could support Baldwin I would have to ask three very important questions.

1) Do you support legalizing all drugs and pardoning non violent drug users?

2) Do you support legalizing victimless crimes such as prostitution in which no one's rights are violated?

3) Do you support freedom of speech to the extent that you would support the right of individuals to openly burn (as long as there is not a public safety issue) the sacred books of any religion such as the Koran and the Christian Bible?

If Baldwin answers YES to all three then I will take back my accusation that he is a theocrat and someone that would continue the war on drugs.

Will you take this test Chuck Baldwin?

I am currently voting and doing grassroots campaigning for Bob Barr. If Baldwin was to directly answer yes to all 3 of these questions without hesitation I would change my vote to Baldwin immediately.

 

[Menthol Patch]

I am currently voting and doing grassroots campaigning for Bob Barr. If Baldwin was to directly answer yes to all 3 of these questions without hesitation I would change my vote to Baldwin immediately.

A forum user named Give.Me.Liberty is going to ask Baldwin these questions this Friday.

 

[Brett85]

Wow, talk about people who demand that it be all or nothing.

 

[Brett85]

Just came across this thread while searching for "Chuck Baldwin" and thought I would bump a 6 year old thread. Lol.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

If Rand loses the primary I really hope that Baldwin runs again.

 

[brandon]

lol menthol patch. What a guy. I once linked him to lemon party and he had a nervous breakdown. Then again when wasn't this guy freaking out?

 

[jmdrake]

LOL. TC why'd you bump this one?

 

[Todd]

Wow, talk about people who demand that it be all or nothing.

I voted for Baldwin, so I don't agree with the OP, but I understand his reasoning. If you think that people can't decide how to rule their own bodies, then they probably are open to other areas they want to interfere with personal liberty. It's a fair question. I'm just willing to bank on Baldwin being reasonable about the whole issue. Baldwin usually steers clear of these issues because he probably wouldn't even touch them. He has bigger ideas than trying to keep someone from smoking thier joints.

 

[Brett85]

LOL. TC why'd you bump this one?

I just thought it would be funny if I bumped a six year old thread, and I think it illustrates that libertarians sometimes allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.