On the contrary! [NOT!] Libertarianism simply accepts the fact that humanoids are imperfect yet are endowed by whoever or whatever they individually decide is their personal creator to experience any and all liberties they chose for themselves as long as we don’t infringe on the rights of others. [blah blah] Libertarians are not “pie-in-the-sky” idealist believing that there is such a thing a human purity or a world of Shangri-La. [yes they do] Libertarians simply believe in personal and individual responsibility and the right to fail as well as succeed. Libertarians simply believe that we as individuals have not just a better concept of how we should live our lives without interference from government than any government can decide for us how to live our lives, but we also have that right and along with that right we also have the responsibility that goes with it. It’s called “freedom.”
And just as is the case with ALL freedoms, there has to be societal boundaries and limitations to it. We can't just do whatever make us happy, as long as it ain't hurtin' nobody! You don't want to live in that world, and I sure as fuck don't. You think you do, because you somehow think that the rest of the country thinks like you and would act like you in any given situation, and that is simply not reality. People take advantage of no societal barriers, they exploit others, they push the boundaries of tolerance, and as much as you don't like to admit it, libertarians have their tolerance limits. There are things you simply do not wish to see society embrace, but you won't face this because you live in denial, thinking that everyone's mind works like a libertarian.
And so do libertarians! The difference is we set the “boundaries & limits” at the point of everything and anything as long as no rights of others are violated. For the perfect examples, gay marriages and drug use. The right of contract between agreeing adults infringes on nobody’s rights not involved in said contract. The right to put into our own bodies whatever we chose because “WE” own our bodies not any freggin government and individuals alone have the responsibility for any consequences for the choices they make and governments are the very worse decision makers when it comes to moral standards for “adult” individuals.
And there is a perfect example of you thinking that society rationalizes and operates under libertarian principles, when they don't. Cigarette companies just shelled out a trillion dollars for lawsuits from people who made the choice to smoke and get lung disease. Toyota just paid billions out to people too stupid to hit their brake pedal! If you buy a blow dryer, the warning tag is as big as the product, and cautions against such things as using the electric device in the shower. But with all this stuff, we are supposed to just throw caution to the wind and accept that people will make the right choices about drugs or what is appropriate marriage?
In case you haven’t noticed, the Drug War is the “catastrophe.” There’s no real difference between the Drug War and government’s misguided and repealed prohibition of alcohol. Neither did anything to eliminate or even limit the amount of alcohol or illegal drugs. Both simply created a high profit tax free market for criminal types. Both corrupted law enforcement and politicians. Both clogged up our judicial and penal system. Both created “more” crime and criminals. Both incarcerated thousands of otherwise non-violent people. Both created violence along our borders and in our cities and even suburbs. The consequences of alcohol prohibition and the Drug War far, far out-strip any consequences of the free use thereof.
It depends on what aspect of the drug war, and what perspective you examine context. Is the drug war against opium houses a catastrophe? In the early 1900s, we literally had opium dens, where people would go veg out and stay geeked on opium for days on end. Products being sold to the public, full of cocaine or other high-power drugs, causing addiction and deaths from overdose, but hey.... this is a catastrophe, so we should just go back to how it was and let people kill themselves if that's what they want to do, right? I agree that laws should be relaxed with regard to marijuana, I think it's less of a health risk than alcohol or tobacco, but I don't support full legalization of all drugs, that's insane, and shows a complete ignorance of history.
Well, our founders disagreed. Most had libertarian brains and a libertarian way of thinking. They proved it when they created our Constitution and its Bill Of Rights. They proposed and created limits on the federal government. They promoted the idea that our bodies and belongings belonged to “US” and not the government. They promoted the right of privacy, religious freedom, freedom of speech, the right of self defense, and the right of free agreeable contract. They didn’t create a Drug War or decide who we could make marriage contracts with.
You don't fucking know how our Founding Fathers were, you're SPECULATING! Yes they did restrain Federal power, and yes they did endorse personal liberty, but they also established a strong support for states rights, and the ability for states to determine their laws and boundaries regarding issues of the day. They would likely tell you that the Federal government has no right to tell you who to marry or what drugs you can use, that's a right reserved for the people and the state, not the federal government. There is no "right to privacy" in the constitution, this is an inferred right granted by the SCOTUS, on the basis of the 4th. Again, the Founding Fathers gave us a mechanism by which we are to determine what IS or ISN'T in accordance with our Constitution, and a way to amend the Constitution, if that determination is in contrast with public opinion.
“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Amendment 9, United States Constitution)
The only possible disclaimer to Amendment 9 is “when an action infringes on the rights of others.” Any action that can’t be shown to infringe on any right of others “IS” a constitutional right. What we do with our “OWN” bodies and “WHO” we make agreeable contracts with, including marriage contracts is none of the damn government’s business.
And when you get to be nominated for the SCOTUS, this will become relevant! Until then, it is simply your opinion of what the Constitution means. This takes us to the ROOT of your problem. You want to say that people aren't "following the constitution" but you mean that they are not following YOUR interpretations of the constitution, which isn't required or implied. YOU aren't the fucking KING! YOU don't get to decide what the Constitution means, for all to live by! We have a system and process where all voices are heard, and all of society's concerns are addressed, and We The People get to ultimately decide, not YOU!
