Alicia posted a blog from the New York Times to support her argument, not one by Alex Jones. Whatever her opinions may be on Osama Bin Laden or the sources she might cite to support them are irrelevant in this situation.

Maybe anarchistic was the wrong term to use. Libertarian would have sufficed. I haven't actually counted the number of Bill of Rights scholars out there and how many of them would argue that the doc's principles of limited government are libertarian, but I assure you that not only are there hundreds, if not thousands, of scholars who would make this case, but there are entire schools of thought and think tanks that maintain this position, including the Cato Institute and the Mises Insitute of Austrian Economics, just to name a few.

Anyway wasn't it Ben Franklin that stated, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" The Fathers knew that the institution of government operates on a slippery slope. The more it interferes in people's lives, i.e. the bigger it gets, the more it needs to further interfere to accomplish its goals. The expansion of the Commerce Clause is a great example. And so eventually it might reach a point as it has now, where the govie is satisfied with seizing somewhere between 30% of your income to your entire life, if needed for the "good of society" of course. Men like Paine, Jefferson and Franklin wanted nothing to do with this tyrannical evil.

So should we dismiss the fringe scholars' opinions with a wave of our hand simply because they're not in the majority? Such an action reeks of intellectual corruptness. The libertarian tradition has a very strong academic foundation that I would urge you to look into it before dismissing it on these shaky grounds. There is a great reading list on the Campaign for Liberty website that might help in getting you a bit more acquainted with the fundamentals of the liberty tradition:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/edu/reading-lis...

There are also "mainstream" academics that would be wiling to discuss the concepts above.
Maybe you can make it out to this Columbia University study group that explores, among its other strands, the elements of anarchism in the framework for American government.

http://www.studyplace.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_educ...

As for your drug comment, its very difficult to argue with someone who simply agrees with the majority opinion. You've already decided that drugs in general are too harmful to society to be tolerated, based most likely on what "most" have decided on this topic, even though the evidence is inconclusive in many cases. You initially take the stance that LSD should be outlawed, unless you might have a chance to research it enough and maybe find enough evidence to allow me or anyone else to use it. Well gee thanks for at least considering that I might be right in my decision to do what I please with my body. How considerate of you. But your initial instinct is to deny others their natural right to happiness, if that means the use of mind altering drugs. If you read through many of the primary writings of the Founding Fathers, they believed that people are free to do what they want as long as they don't agress against others. There are already laws in place that will convict a crackhead if he tries to rob or kill you (aggression). We don't need additional laws to prevent him from being a crackhead.

I don't want to move to Pakistan or Mexico. This country was created on anarchistic principles. The Bill of Rights was specifically enacted to preserve individual liberty and natural rights by limiting the government's power. I'd probably be satisfied to live in a society with no central government at all but at the very LEAST, can we please adhere to the law of the land as espoused by our Founding Fathers? Can our government please stop breaking its own laws?

Ryan, assuming we don't lump LSD and pot together, do you have a response to my argument?

Interesting quotations there Ryan. I would have to say that I agree with (as I assume you do) Rand's statement that drug addiction is an escape. Perhaps I would go as far as agreeing that it is an escape from an unbearable inner state. But let's for a second consider one of the crucial forms an "unbearable inner state" may take. There are many people that suffer from depression and other mental illnesses who might benefit from the occasional marijuana or LSD use. Of course the exact effects of drugs on the brain have not been substantiated (in part do to the government's fear of the results) but why can't we just let people decide for themselves if the drug is making them feel better? Why can't we let people make their own trade offs? I assure you there are millions of depressed individuals who would gladly suffer some loss of consciousness or memory to be alleviated for a moment of the pain and stress of constantly internalizing the world's problems. Somehow America's favorite drug, American Idol, doesn't cut it for these folks. And anyway Ayn Rand didn't need pot because she got high from looking at her own reflection in the mirror.

Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics, Francis Crick (who was also allegedly under the influence of LSD when he first discovered DNA) makes the following comments on drug use during than interview posted here: http://www.intuition.org/txt/crick2.htm

MISHLOVE: Do you have a sense of the process by which hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD, or psychedelic drugs, actually affect the brain? What is going on there?

CRICK: Well, I don't have a detailed knowledge, no, I don't, and I'm not sure that anybody else really knows. They have a rough idea.

MISHLOVE: We know that obviously there's a chemical influence.

CRICK: Well, typically, different ones act in different ways. But a common thing is to see colors more vividly, for example, and often to see things move in a way when they're not actually moving, and things of that sort. So they boost up in some way the activities of what you might call the color parts of the brain and the moving parts of the brain and so on. But the government isn't very keen on giving money for research on that sort of thing.

MISHLOVE: Not at all. Well, I suppose many neuroscientists would feel that the study of the chemical interactions at the synapses of the brain is a very fruitful area for research.

CRICK: Absolutely, but most of it's done in the context of mental illness or conditions like depression and things of that sort.

Just some food for thought.

The argument against the government having "jurisdiction" in this area (recreational and medicinal marijuana use) reminds me of the argument homeschoolers make against the inclusion of homeschooling language in compulsory education law, i.e. once the govie has decided that it is a legitimate right of individuals to smoke pot, it is inevitable that they then control how we get access to that right, on the paternalistic premise that they're just trying to protect us. This will include the regulation of marijuana supply and therefore, its price, but more dangerously, it will include regulation of patients' relationships with their physicians and the health sector broadly.

This of course all goes back to the misguided notion that the Bill of Rights and Constitution somehow "grant" citizens their rights, when in fact you and I and many other advocates of liberty would instead argue that the Bill of Rights was put into place to protect people from the govie intruding on rights that are theirs to begin with.

And then there's the hilarious Harry Reid take on the voluntarism of Taxation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg

What a great find Andrew! Keep em coming...

ancap125,

You got me on the song title. For better or worse, I've listened to it one too many times, rendering the title meaningless on one hand but on another allowing me to recognize that the lyrics you site in your argument,

All your private property is
Target for your enemy
And your enemy is

and

We are forces of chaos and anarchy
Everything they say we are we are
And we are very
Proud of ourselves

Are actually two separate verses. They are segmented in the song by music and a few "Da da da da daas". So it's not at all clear that the WE in the private property verse is the same WE in the forces of anarchy verse. So no, can't say that I agree with your suggestion that they might be attacking private property.

I've come across many interpretations of their political intent, even on the anarcho-capitalist site we all know and love, Lew Rockwell.com, that praise the band for being anarchistic, precursors to 70 and 80s punk bands with similar messages, like the Sex Pistols. Either way, they are anti-establishment for sure and in no song or writing have I found openly espousal of the state or collectivism. (Until proven otherwise, I will continue to think so!)

This is not to say I don't sympathize with your defenses. I hate more than anything when free-marketers like myself are confused with state capitalists. It makes me sick and I just want to yell, "Shut up you have no idea what's better for the little guy! You're being brainwashed by the anti-capitalist false ideology!" I hear you on that, it can be pretty damn devastating...