I note this youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBEcU6Wazik

In it, Reason TV presents the position taken by Rick Doblin of MAPS.

The central idea of Libertarianism -- freedom from government regulation of personal choices -- is, of course, in total alignment with entheogenic liberty. Support for this video, to help show the support for that liberty, would be of benefit to us, IMO.

I watch Reason videos all the time. They get a wide swing of interest (and likes) based on the choice of topic. This video has already gotten strong support. If it were to receive even more, people who watch such things WILL take the message of strong support among Libertarians for the rational basis of entheogenic liberty, in particular.

Just to point out, as we are an international forum, libertarianism means different things in America and the rest of the world. In the majority of the world, Libertarian Socialism is, essentially, what we in the states refer to as Anarchism. What we, in the US refer to as "Libertarianism" is kind of a political anomaly in a global context.

For a brief explanation, I'll quote Chomsky (although there should be an outstanding and salient essay appearing on this very distinction shortly).



Sorry for the slight diversion SWIMfriend (and great to see you back around!). That distinction made, I think there is a natural affinity (or should be) between Anarchism and psychedelics. I know this is probably shocking, coming from me

But seriously, I agree (with my slight re-framing )

I see modern US libertarian thought -- especially among younger citizens -- as quite heavily aligned with the principles of anarchism. Certainly (even though I'm not young), I would actually call myself an anarchist.

Even so, the current established and "official" Libertarian position on drugs in particular is the only rational policy of any group with national significance in the US.

Chomsky has highly evolved political concepts which, it sometimes seems to me, only he fully understands. In any case, I think he most typically searches for those features of any process which he sees as worthy of criticism -- perhaps with the best of intentions -- and the result is that he often comes off seeming to be equally critical of EVERYTHING; which, I don't believe, really represents his true sentiments.

I agree with your point regarding Libertarian policy on the national level (although the "libertarians" in office are a bit of an odd, and at times alarming group, imo).

I figured citing Chomsky would cause a response similar to that, which is why i mentioned the other paper. Alas, it appears that my friend has put that paper on indefinite hold while working on other projects. Here are some words from other friends.

(Please let me know if I'm sidelining your original intent too much. It's a distinction that I feel is important to make, but I do not wish to do so at the expense of your thread)

There are two major sides to the anarchist coin (at least, that I see at my university):

Anarcho-capitalists - who believe that all people should be able to do whatever they want, so long as they don't infringe on the basic rights of others, and that people should be able to own private property and barter it however they wish. These are what most people think of (in the USA) when they think 'libertarian.'

Anarcho-communists - who still believe in the freedom to do whatever you want as long as your not hurting anyone, but who reject the notion of private property and believe that everything should be communal.

Both sides apparently hate each-other even more than they do The State, which seems odd to me.

Blessings
~ND

By any remotely reasonable definition, it's pretty hard to make a coherent argument that anarcho-capitalists are actually anarchists. Just saying...

And there are many more distinctions to actual anarchists beyond anarcho-communists. You have anarcho -syndicalists,
-insurrectionists, -primitivists, -punks, -feminists...and the list goes on. Obviously these are all just labels and there are various spectra and scales. The important thing, imo for the purposes of this fairly narrow discussion about definitions, is not confusing the self proclaimed "anarcho-capitalists" and American libertarians with anarchists, as there are miles of distance between the ideologies presented.

The main idea of the thread is that it's nice to see coherence: a ideology which claims to want to enhance liberty fulfilling that claim by supporting entheogenic liberty. It's my opinion that murmurings of substantial liberty which go against the "mainstream" -- such as calls to end the "drug war" or, most especially, to end it against entheogens while simultaneously calling for research on them for therapy and psychological exploration uses -- should get some support from...us.

The drug war is inherently irrational and harmful. It has already gone far in harming human sensibilities by its militant, fundamentalist war on new ideas and experiences. I'm ever-eager to support and nurture any apparent call for an end to the war -- or even only a truce. The Libertarians have been the largest and most coherent voice for that in the US.

If you look at the political spectrum as represented by an XY-axis grid, where +Y represents authoritarian and -Y is libertarian, and -X is conservative, +X is liberal, Obama is slightly +X and very +Y, Chomsky is very +X and very -Y. He's quite the left-libertarian.

I've always been a fan of chomsky, but the man can be extremely verbose. I once listened to a lecture he gave on CSPAN, while I huffed ether; as you can imagine, the experience was a bit baffling.

Libertarianism has struck me as a means to accelerate capitalism - something which certainly doesn't need more encouragement.

What particularly alarms me is the link of the Koch brothers to the libertarian philosophy. From my perspective, libertarians are very much in it for themselves, and their liberty is at the cost of the greater good. While our current state of affairs, both here in the UK and over there in the US, are far from perfect, the state does offer a certain degree of protection from corporate interests. If libertarians should ever get the upper hand, an already unbalanced system which favours the elite and development of a plutocracy will be cleared away, and all we'll be left with is an oligarchy without check.

Over here in the UK, libertarian philosophy is also the driving force behind the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which has enjoyed a massive surge in support. UKIP's main goal is to take the UK out of the EU - something which would be majorly devastating to our economy and our scientific capacity - in a bid to reduce immigration to the UK. Other parts of UKIP's philosophy include:
- Ending climate change action
- More funding for the military at the expense of other public institutions (health, education, etc)
- Privatisation of the NHS
- Raising tax for the vast majority of the UK whilst reducing it for the wealthiest
- Removing the UK's multicultural ideology
And more.

The support is largely stemming from the political discontentment in the country at present, and also fueled by age-old hysteria about "Johnny Foreigner". Our far-right parties have all but collapsed in the UK, with all funneling into UKIP's banner.

The discontentment is completely understandable. Since the 1980s, we've seen the rise of the elite class, supported fully by the political establishment. Deregulation, privatisation, and other philosophies have all contributed to a decline in what the state can protect us from and offer to the people, all at the expense of those not fortunate enough to be born into the upper classes or connected at the right universities.

Above all else, the NHS - free healthcare - is under threat because of these actions. This, from a UK point of view, is pretty much treason, yet the government pushes ahead with the stealthy dismantlement of the NHS in order to line the pockets of private health company owners, which Conservative MPs (our republicans and current government) are generally associated with in one way or another, be it shares, executive positions, political donations, and the like.

This, combined with austerity and a full frontal assault on our welfare state, which leaves the vunerable of our society living off donations to food banks and our disabled forced into jobs they cannot do, has left us politically destitute. We now are faced with more Conservatives, more Labour (our left, proven to be ineffective and as corrupt thanks to Tony Blair et al), or UKIP. Our only other option, the Liberal Democrats (liberal socialism), has been decimated thanks to the bungling of LD leader Nick Clegg, who stabbed his voters in the back after aligning with the Tories to form the current government, and reneging on his promise to scrap university tuition fees, and instead tripling them.

And yet, UKIP and their libertarian philosophy is not the answer. Our current system has been overrun by lobbyists, and now politicians listen to the elite, and not the people. All libertarianism seeks to do is to remove that pesky democracy in the middle, and just hand the keys to the country to the elite who got us into this mess in the first place.

In the US, it would seem libertarians are driven by the same philosophy, with followers of the doctrine having wool pulled over their eyes about where it is going. Libertarianism would bring about change, granted, but it is not a progressive socially good change.

Now, with the focus on the war on drugs, I can understand why people would be drawn to libertarianism with such an offer on the table. It is still worth rejecting. There are other ways to achieve this end without relinquishing full control of the economy to the super rich (which, arguably, has already happened anyway).

I'd say what needs to be fought for is politics that is in touch with the people, that safeguards public assets, offers protection to our poor and our ill, and which puts facts, reason, and the public good above profits, elitist backscratching, and self interest. Libertarian does not offer this, it just hijacks the notion of liberty, offers it to a few, and flies in the face of everyone else.

However, I was fully unaware of social libertarianism until reading this thread, which I find intriguing. It seems pretty far removed from the philosophy of the Kochs, and I will be reading into it more Never got into my Chomsky, although I've always meant to. Maybe now is the time to start.

I should also point out for the sake of balance that I too am a liberal socialist - probably the worst combination of words to many in the US since 'health' and 'food' (although I currently do not vote as I feel the Lib Dems have gone against their voter base). I value both capitalism and aspects of socialism, and feel the two can work together in harmony with the right guidance, regulation, and cultural attitude. You often get the talk of trickle down economics - liberal socialists make sure it happens. We want a rich, affluent society, and yet we also want policies that work in the social good. I'm no longer a Christian, but some of the ethics still remain from my catholic upbringing - the most important of which is loving your fellow man. As long as the NHS still stands, at least we're doing something in the UK Jesus would approve of.

Again I want to emphasize that my intention of starting the thread was NOT to promote Libertarianism per se. My intent was to note one source which supports a rational policy toward drugs--with a particular emphasis on psychedelics.

But...if I had to choose between neighbors who are "in it for themselves" and neighbors who wish to force me to lead my personal life in the manner they determine is "for the good of myself and others," I'll take the former.

I'm personally VERY wary of those who see "personal liberty" as needing to be weighed against "the common good." Are we men, or ants?

Let's remember that current worldwide drug policy is precisely based on the intention to blatantly limit personal liberty in order to best serve "the common interest." The makers of such policy would be the first to claim that users of psychedelics are "in it for themselves" at the cost of the "common good."

I don't know how the libertarian movement is in the UK, but a lot of american libertarians are disenfranchised with the corporate-backed state getting involved with every aspect of our lives. The ones who are awake realized the system was rigged when Pacific Railroad was legally declared an individual entity. to say Libertarianism seems like a means of promoting capitalism isn't giving much credit to the working class libertarians, who have no interest in furthering the interests of oligopolies.

Except that in the US, the Libertarian party, as well as self-identified libertarians are in favor of unregulated business and "truly" free markets. The logical conclusion of this proposal is a situation where the corporate-state is overtaken or subsumed by corporations. In practice, I don't see how it could lead to anything other than furthering the interests of the oligopolies.


I hear you and I think, somewhat alarmingly, the Libertarian party tends to offer the most coherent stance on drugs. My concern is the other components of their ideologies. So, I guess the question for those interested in electoral politics is, what to do about that dilemma?

"truly" free markets would level the business playing field, helping smaller businesses thrive, I don't see how that would favor oligopolies. obviously, business laws need to be reformed, to take power back from large businesses and the legal stranglehold they have on the overall system, and give it back to the people; seems like a rational libertarian POV.

The thing is, the Libertarian party and its supporters, as well as many of the libertarians I have encountered "out and about" don't seem intent on restructuring the currently existing businesses in a manner that would make "free markets" even, fair, or whatever term we'd want to apply, in the event they were to put an end to corporate welfare and other problems in the current system. So, on their own terms, giving free rein to the tyrannies that are corporations in a libertarian model would essentially place us all at the mercy of the corporations, minus any inkling of regulation or state intervention.

Additionally, truly free markets would still present all of the inherent atrocities of capitalism, including ecological destruction, the buying off of regulatory agencies and the subjugation of the majority of the population to a wealthy minority of rulers. Neither the state nor the corporations that run it, in either the currently existing or the libertarian model, are appealing overlords, imo.

The relevant question is: Could it be any worse? If Obama -- who had a strong mandate to rewrite the rules -- has turned out to be as big (or bigger) a corporatist as the presidents preceding him, then...

Interestingly, Reason TV has also recently conducted a rather comprehensive interview with Ralph Nader (whose anti-corporate credentials are impeccable). In it, Nader comes off as being aligned IN PRINCIPLE with the philosophical underpinnings of Libertarianism, but, as might be expected, insists that any SIGN of corporatism be eliminated from any possible platform of the Libertarian party before he could approve.

One has to ask whether it's realistic (and practical) to have an attitude that amounts to "If we can't have a PERFECT approach to change, then I'll keep voting for the same craziness we always have."

Here's Nader's interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QVAUFnckTU

To be fair, the position you present seems to indicate a belief that electoral politics/voting is the only means for change we have, or at least the most viable. I don't think it's possible for politicians to get us out of any of the messes we are actually in. I think we may occasionally see a taste of reform here and there (although even that is becoming increasingly rare). Otherwise, I think it's all just smoke and mirrors...false promises and more austerity as the corporate state continues on its authoritarian joyride. I think electoral politics are fine, to the (increasingly rare) degree that they can be used to ameliorate real-world suffering, but otherwise, I think we need to be engaging in significant action outside of that realm.

In other words Don't just Vote, take action.

That said, the drug war is something where, if voting means an end to the absurdity of incarceration for a segment of the population, then I can see the merits, as long as it does not include the slashing of regulations and protections that could very well accompany a libertarian platform. What good is ending prohibition if there's no clean water to drink or air to breathe...or if worker protections are (even further) obliterated?

Could it be worse? Sadly, I think the answer is "always," but I think we can act in ways that strive to make things better. If people feel that voting is a part of that, I can accept that, so long as they can accept that greater action is also necessary.

I wouldn't rely on Reason TV as an unbiased and impartial stance on libertarianism. Nick Gillespie, the right-wing leather clad journo of libertarian-backing fame, is its editor-in-chief while David Koch, who along with his brother would only increase his power base with a move towards libertarianism, is a trustee in Reason. It's basically an echo chamber for libertarian thought - and rather like basing your immigration views solely around Fox News content.

Koch, and other major libertarians, are major corporate guys. To answer your question, yes, it could be a hell of a lot worse. These guys want the welfare state done, more money for the military, and more power to the corporate. Libertarians would give it to them, all under the faux-banner of more freedom for themselves whilst receiving none and having the remaining few of their public rights and assets dissolved.