Well, Ron is constitutionally correct that the states can regulate, or even ban, drugs. And I think using FedGov to stop them from doing so is a cure that's worse than the disease. Rothbard is at least usually correct that centralization = bad even if it looks good from a distance.
BTW I don't think you're a radical authoritarian at all. In fact, I've been silently wondering to myself why you put "Conservative" in your name at all, since you're definitely a libertarian, albeit more of a classical liberal than a Rothbardian ancap.
I've heard some people call the mainline Tea Party folks "Anarchists." I laughed to myself. Even Ron Paul isn't even nearly an anarchist, although he's certainly closer to that than anyone else. I think he's really a minarchist but frames his arguments in constitutional rhetoric since that is in fact the document that he swore to uphold.
As for marijuana, I've gotten weird looks for saying I wanted to legalize it but insisting that it should not be taxed. Of course, if I were in any position of power I'd vote for a "Legalize and tax" bill in a state where marijuana was illegal, its still a start.
In theory, that's right. In practice, it just isn't. Maybe under President Traditional Conservative, this would be the case, and I can understand that, but the reality is, it just isn't. The reality is, however, we could probably persuade people that this policy is a good idea more easily than convincing them tat DWI should just be legalized is a good idea.
Yep. Where's their warrant? That, I have to ask, and will probably disagree with TC.
There's no debate on drugs other than marijuana either. Look, I do have my priorities and drunk driving really isn't on that list either way but just because something isn't up for debate doesn't mean we shouldn't support it anyway. I'm willing to let this one go, but I'm not willing to let drug legalization, absolute gun legislation (Meaning anything up to a missile launcher, RPG, tank, anything that can be pinpointed) or noninterventionist foreign policy go without a fight, even if those issues are not up for debate currently.
I didn't quote the comments, but I can't agree with a prohibition on minors drinking alcohol, especially since they do it all the time in Europe. I could support an absolute ban on teens using hard drugs like heroin, and I can support prohibiting teens from PURCHASING alcohol. I don't really think the NAP is a reasonable policy to apply to kids. But if a parent wants to let their kid drink a glass of wine with dinner or whatever, I think that's a right that the parent should have.
