Full personal rights and full personal responsibilities, yes--but corporations should be regulated. I resent the notion of eliminating the minimum wage, which is a Libertarian pipe dream. When it comes to potential to harm society, corporations have it all over individuals, as is evidenced by Monsanto, Bechtel, WalMart, Nike, etc. If we did away with the minimum wage, these corporations would dramatically shift their wages downward, and we would have mass poverty across this country like you wouldn't believe. And the idea that minimum wage laws create unemployment is absurd on its face when you consider the enormous and growing disparity between the average worker's pay and the pay CEOs and CFOs receive. And no, I don't think that these people deserve hundreds of millions of dollars simply because they have business degrees.

When I say progressive, what I mean is that society should actually make progress, rather than stagnating in the cesspool of fascism that we are currently experiencing. Anything that smacks of totalitarianism against individuals should be eliminated, and we should base our policies on what is good not only for people in our country, but what is best for all of humanity. We should not allow American corporations to travel the world seeking weak spots where the people are easily exploited, then exploiting them. The reason why so many people around the world hate America is that our government encourages this kind of exploitation.

When I say that I am too progressive for many Libertarians, what I mean is that I lean heavily toward socialism. I believe that the haves should share with the have nots, and that if the haves refuse to share, they should be penalized with higher taxes and forced to share.

I believe that one person is not better than another simply because one makes more money than another, and I resent companies like Wal Mart that exploit people in third world countries by paying them pennies an hour, then sell these products--often poorly made by the poorest of the poor--to the poorest of the poor here in America.

Yes, I know that some here at Cannabis News would entirely disagree with me (under the belief--I believe misguided--that any hint of socialism is a reincarnation of the USSR). I respect your right to disagree. The fact is that the free market is not "self-correcting," as many believe, nor is it in any way free, save for the lack of regulations placed on those who most need to be regulated. The "free market" is just another way to enslave the people. I would rather have the people be free and the corporations feel enslaved than the other way around.

How would I create a balance? I would make free trade mean exactly that, and no more. We could freely trade products with other countries without imposing tariffs, provided that those countries have not done some enormous wrong to us, like bomb us or fly airplanes into our buildings. Those countries that have wronged us would either not be allowed to trade with us or would be required to pay high tariffs. Tariffs could also be imposed like trade sanctions on those countries that commit human rights violations.

But free trade would not mean that corporations can move their jobs outside the country. Products can be traded; people cannot. Many don't realize that after NAFTA was implemented, many thousands of jobs left the United States for Mexico, and the minimum wage in Mexico actually went down 25%, creating a larger poverty-stricken working class than existed before NAFTA. So, transporting jobs outside the country is not only a disservice to the United States, but also a disservice to other countries.

I could go on for many pages, and perhaps I should write a book, then seek public office. At any rate, I fear that I have already overstayed my welcome on this subject, so I won't detail the rest of my ideas (which are many). Suffice to say that I'm about as liberal as they come, so I agree with Libertarian social policies, but I think their economic policies leave a lot to be desired.

Political Philosophy is all about shades of gray, few people fit neatly into the box - I know I don't!

In other words, it seems that Libertarians are, indeed, trying to cast as wide a net as possible. The problem with such an approach is that you end up with no clear definition of what, exactly, a "Libertarian" is.

My approach is to vote Libertarian and Green, depending on the individual candidates, and with the occasional exception for good people in the major parties (for example, I would vote for Paul Wellstone (D) in Minnesota, but I would also vote for Ron Paul (R) in Texas, if I were allowed to vote in both states, which I am not, nor have I ever tried). I figure that the two approaches would balance one another (Lib and Green, that is). At heart, I would consider my political leanings "Progressive," which is actually far more liberal than many Libertarians can stomach.

These people have ZERO (0), zip, nada, facts about the use of illegal substances by teens. Same goes for the Home Surveys done by the government. Sure, over here is the DARE cop, the principle, your teachers... "are you using Johnny?"

"Uhhh... yes I am, sir. Please proceed in flushing my life down the toilet."

They will never get the truth, but that doesnt really matter much to them it seems.

Posted on Tue, Aug. 20, 2002

School questions credibility, responsibility of survey.

BLOOMINGTON (AP) - Indiana University was crowned the nation's No. 1 "party school" Monday in an annual Princeton Review survey that school leaders and medical experts derided as irresponsible and unscientific. Following IU in the rankings were Clemson University, the University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa, Pennsylvania State University and the University of Florida.

IU officials questioned the No. 1 ranking because the school, which didn't appear on the list last year, has toughened its stance on student drinking since the 1998 alcohol-related death of a student.

Complete Article: http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/3901759.htm

Here are links to a couple of Tests that assess your political views relative to Libertarian thought. Each can be taken with a grain of salt but you may find the results surprising. I did, enjoy!

The first is more thorough and takes about 5 or 10 minutes. Results are given as a numerical score at the end with a brief explaination. (My score: 51) http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi/purity.cgi

The second will appeal to your desire for instant gratification, and at the end graphically displays your position in the overall political scheme of things. (My score Left-leaning Libertarian) http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

WASHINGTON, DC -- Teens report they have easier access to marijuana than they have to either alcohol or tobacco, according to a national survey released today by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. The results marked the first time in the survey’s history that adolescents said it was easier to buy pot than cigarettes or alcohol.

Keith Stroup, Executive Director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), said the survey results speak directly to the failure of pot prohibition, and point to the need for the establishment of a regulated, non-criminal marijuana market.

“Despite spending billions of dollars and arresting 734,000 Americans annually to enforce marijuana laws, prohibition is failing to achieve its most fundamental and important goal: to keep marijuana out of the hands of kids,” Stroup said.

“The fact that teens say that marijuana is easier to attain than either alcohol or tobacco – two legal, regulated products – emphasizes the importance of developing a controlled market for marijuana – complete with age restrictions and serious penalties for anyone found distributing marijuana to those under 21.”

Stroup noted that Nevadans have an opportunity to vote for an initiative (Question 9) this November that would both eliminate criminal and civil penalties for the personal use of marijuana by adults and establish a regulated market for cannabis in that state.

“Unlike our current marijuana policies, the provisions set forth in Question 9 will free up police resources to deal with more serious and violent crime, and reduce the availability of marijuana to children under 21 years of age. According to the results of today’s CASA survey, passage of such a policy is long overdue.”

Thirty-four percent of teens said that marijuana is easier to attain than alcohol or tobacco, and more than one-third polled said they could purchase pot in just a few hours. By comparison, 31 percent of adolescents reported that they could buy cigarettes most readily, and only 14 percent said they could most easily purchase beer.

For further information: www.norml.org or e-mail: normlmedia@earthlink.net