Libertarian Stuff

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Okay, so I'm now in a government database because I have a cold.

I tried to avoid it by using the new PE (phenylephrine) versions of Sudafed and it's knock-offs, but it really doesn't work that well. It sure doesn't work as well as the good old pseudo ephedrine we're all used to.

So I go to my local Walgreen's and make my way to the pharmacist, I ask for their brand pseudo ephedrine tablets, 48 count, and am asked for my ID, so my information can be entered into their system. I am then informed that federal law limits an individual to purchase no more that 3.6 grams of pseudo ephedrine per day and less than 9 grams in a month.

So, my 48-pack of 30 milligram tablets is 1,440 milligrams, or 1.44 grams. So basically, an individual can purchase 120 tablets per day up to a total of 300 tablets in a month.

With that much, an individual can manufacture several grams of methamphetamine, now all you need is a couple of friend and you can make plenty, not necessarily as much as you could have, but plenty. Enough to sell and or use, and we're still only talking about domestic manufacture. You can't forget that N. Korea, Thailand, Mexico and Australia are all sources of importation into the United States.

How is this helping the war on drugs? No one can say for sure until it has been in place for a few years, but I don't think it's doing much of anything at all to reduce drug use.

The only way to win the drug war is to legalize all drugs, it will make the black market disappear, in turn eliminating a large amount of (other, violent) crimes.

The war on drugs creates more drug problems, the war on terrorism creates more terrorists. The war on drugs is taking away our privacy and freedom in the same way the war on terror is (i.e. Patriot Act, unauthorized phone taps, etc.).

I suggest that anyone that believes in the drug war, or knows someone that believes in it to find the book "Drug War Addiction" by Sheriff Bill Masters. He's been on the 'front lines' of the drug war and has seen how futile and hopeless it truly is.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Colorado Election Guide
Okay, it's getting close to the general election, so I thought I'd go ahead and do a quick write-up of my thoughts going into this election for Colorado voters:
Amendment 38 - Petitions: I suggest YES, it will simplify petitioning, and protect your first amendment right to petition.
Amendment 39 - School District Spending requirements: I say NO, schools can determine how to spend money better on a local level than any statewide mandate.
Amendment 40 - Term limits for judges: I say YES
Amendment 41 - Ethics in Government: I don't have an opinion
Amendment 42 - Minimum Wage Increase: I say NO, any raise in the minimum wage, reduces employment. I am 100% against any minimum wage whatsoever. It is not a legitimate function of government to mandate wages
Amendment 43 - Marriage: I say NO, it would define "marriage" as only a union between one man and one woman. I oppose this because the government sold have no say in marriage whatsoever, the only legitimate function in government in regards to marriage is the enforcement of contractual agreements, NOT to define religious terms and ceremonies.
Amendment 44 - Marijuana possession: I suggest YES, adults in a free society should be able to decide which drugs they choose to or not to use. While this doesn't go near far enough (a complete end to all prohibition) it is definitely a step in the right direction.
Referendum E - Property Tax Reduction for Disabled Veterans: I say NO. It is a special interest tax break, and that's wrong. Care for veterans is the responsibility of the federal government.
Referendum F - Recall Deadlines: I say NO. The citizens should be able to remove unsuitable officials and replace them with elected officials of their choice.
Referendum G - Repeal of Obsolete provisions: YES
Referendum H - Elimination of a State Business Income Tax Deduction: YES, it will eliminate a tax deduction for employing illegal aliens.
Referendum I - Domestic Partnerships: I say YES, although it still says that marriage is between one man and one woman, same-sex couples should receive equal treatment under the law as married couples.

Referendum J - School District Spending Requirements: NO for the same reason as Amendment 39.
Referendum K - Immigration Lawsuit Against the Federal Government: I could really care less, all this does is tell the Colorado Attorney General to either initiate or join with other states in a lawsuit against the US Attorney General to demand that the federal government enforces existing immigration law.
Well that's it for the ballot issues, I'll do candidates tomorrow, but it will more than likely just be: Vote for the Libertarian if there's one, and if there isn't don't bother, but we'll see

Friday, September 15, 2006

ESA urges young gamers to "play for real" by voting

Now this is great. Libertarians should try this. We've gone after the drug crowd, the gun crowd, but not after the gamers...

I am a gamer, and I have to say that this is an excellent idea, considering that laws restricting games are created and pushed by non-gamers, and more that anyone, people that have never played a game in their lives. If they were to play the games they have problems with, I can guarantee you they would change their tune.

And this is the very reason gamers should get out and vote. Make your voice heard!

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Gazette.com: "Ritter’s firearms stances blasted"

you should read the comments... mostly the first and last. I'm hoping this guy isn't a native Coloradan.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Microsoft Security Pricing: Predatory or Correctional?

I've been spending too much time on the right to keep and bear arms stuff, so this one is going in a different direction: Free Market Economics.

It isn't often that I agree with what Microsoft does, but I'm on their side 100% with this one. To me it looks like other companies are just pissed off because Microsoft had a better idea than them. MS seems to be filling a hole in the security market where the other companies had failed to offer anything substantial.

Large corporations won't use MS's security software, they'll stick with Symantec and McAfee, or whomever they have been using. Unless there is some great advantage for a company to switch, they won't.

MS's market will be consumers, and probably not technologically savvy consumers at that. Most 'geeks' already have a favorite antivirus program, and it's usually the freely available ones. I personally use Alwil's AVAST!, which works great for what I need it for. At work, they use Symantec Corporate, which in my opinion is great, it even has built-in Spyware/Adware protection.

Anyway, this is how the free market works. There will always be someone with a better idea, or a cheaper product. The only way to survive is to change, add value to your product, make a better product.

Everyone was mad a MS for creating a monopoly, now they are mad at them for being competitive in a market that needs competition. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone would make up their minds?

Monday, June 19, 2006

Bill Of Rights Press

Just wanted to let everyone know about this wonderful site. Anything you may want to read but can't find in regular bookstores. Total Privacy Policy," so no one you don't want to know what you're reading will. Great prices, great books, and very Libertarian.

I totally support them, and I urge you to do the same. They support your rights, and they support the Libertarian Party as they can. They offer to donate table space at gun shows all the time.

Check them out, you'll be glad you did.