[POLL] Mustachian Political Voting

[dragoncar]

I also voted fiscal conservative social liberal, but I think I'm rapidly becoming fiscally liberal.

Why?  I'm learning more and more about the way our fiat monetary system works, QE, bond insurance, etc. over at the permanent portfolio forum.  Fiscal conservatives generally want taxes to equal or surpass spending, but there's not a very big difference between taxes (reducing the amigt of money in peoples hands) and debt issuance (reducing the value of the money in people's hands).  The difference seems to be more on the macroeconomic response - government deficit seems to lead to prosperity and surplus seems to lead toward recession.  I vote for prosperity.

That doesn't mean I think we should be wasteful or have insanely high total expenditures.  Just that I don't care so much about the budget being balanced.

* disclaimer:  I'm still struggling to finalize my understanding as I've only recently begun learning about this topic in a meaningful way.  Feel free to let me know if I'm misunderstanding.

[renbutler]

Socially I am liberal as well, as I want a government that stays our of our lives.

That's kind of funny, because socially I lean conservative, as I want a government that stays out of our lives.

I'm sure that if you were to share examples of how your view is valid, I would be able to counter with my own examples of how mine is also valid.

[dragoncar]

Socially I am liberal as well, as I want a government that stays our of our lives.

That's kind of funny, because socially I lean conservative, as I want a government that stays out of our lives.

I'm sure that if you were to share examples of how your view is valid, I would be able to counter with my own examples of how mine is also valid.

I'm sure renbutler was getting at this, but neither position is genuine.  Both reek of a "get the government out of my medicare" mentality.  I.e. you want the government out of your life, except where you want it in your life.  What would the world really look like if the government stayed out of our lives?  You may fantasize about and wish for such a world, but I guarantee you've never experienced anything remotely like it. 

Unless you really wanted that anarchism checkbox.

[dmn]

I am also puzzled by the very unbalanced poll results. If anyone has a good explanation, I am curious.

The difference seems to be more on the macroeconomic response - government deficit seems to lead to prosperity and surplus seems to lead toward recession.  I vote for prosperity.

The other longer-term effect, which you can observe in the Eurozone, is that government deficit leads to more instability, because at very high debt burdens, governments become very vulnerable to interest rate changes, and interest rate spikes can cause indebted governments to default. Part of the banking crisis in Europe is because banks suddenly lost a great deal of money when the Greek debt was restructured. Of course, right now the Eurozone is hit by both the austerity programs *and* the debt overhang, which makes for a quite massive recession in the Southern European countries.

So I think government debt has a tradeoff similar to corporate debt: debt financing produces prosperity now, but increases the potential instability later.

[dragoncar]

I am also puzzled by the very unbalanced poll results. If anyone has a good explanation, I am curious.

The difference seems to be more on the macroeconomic response - government deficit seems to lead to prosperity and surplus seems to lead toward recession.  I vote for prosperity.

The other longer-term effect, which you can observe in the Eurozone, is that government deficit leads to more instability, because at very high debt burdens, governments become very vulnerable to interest rate changes, and interest rate spikes can cause indebted governments to default. Part of the banking crisis in Europe is because banks suddenly lost a great deal of money when the Greek debt was restructured. Of course, right now the Eurozone is hit by both the austerity programs *and* the debt overhang, which makes for a quite massive recession in the Southern European countries.

So I think government debt has a tradeoff similar to corporate debt: debt financing produces prosperity now, but increases the potential instability later.

The difference is that Greece is a currency user, whereas the US is a currency issuer.  Greece could not inflate its way out of debt, as can the US.

[dmn]

The difference is that Greece is a currency user, whereas the US is a currency issuer.  Greece could not inflate its way out of debt, as can the US.

Yes, but if the US inflates its way out of its debt, this will be economically equivalent to a default: in real terms, its lenders would take a hit. Banks/insurance companies/retirement funds that hold government bonds would struggle.

What may help is that the US has borrowed significant amounts of money abroad, so the shock would be distributed worldwide and the domestic impact on the US may be smaller than the impact on Greece.

[olivia]

My theory is that MMM attracts nonconformists, and the posters seem to also skew young.  Young nonconformists on an internet forum are unlikely to be socially conservative. 

Social conservatives tend to be "traditional" and less questioning of the status quo.  (Get married, buy house in the 'burbs, have 2.5 kids, etc.) 

I'm sure there are piles of anecdotal "evidence" to disprove this, but it's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

[grantmeaname]

Social conservatives tend to be "traditional" and less questioning of the status quo.  (Get married, buy house in the 'burbs, have 2.5 kids, etc.)

The party I admire is the frugal one, the party I oppose is consumerist...

Called it.

[pom]

Socially I am liberal as well, as I want a government that stays our of our lives.

That's kind of funny, because socially I lean conservative, as I want a government that stays out of our lives.

One prime exemple is gay marriage. Frankly why would I care and why does the government get to choose who can or can't marry. I understand for child brides since they are not old enough to give a well-informed consent buy why can't a woman marry a woman? I married a damn fine woman so I can totally understand the desire to marry one.

However I want the government to balance the books and minimize taxes so I am definitely a fiscal conservative.

One question is if welfare is a social issue or a fiscal issue. To me, as it is related to money, it is fiscal in nature but some may have a different definition of fiscal vs social.

[StarswirlTheMustached]

One thing I find interesting in this discussion, re: liberals/conservatives vs. "live within your means" (from Spork et al. above) is that it's very memetically based, rather than fact-based.
That is, who runs up the bigger budget deficits? The right or the left?
Jimmy Carter, with a democratic house and senate, ran absolutely tiny budget deficits compared to Regan. And I don't think you can say malaise-era Jimmy Carter was dealing with a better economy, either. After that example, it seems American governments are very happy spinning the printing presses for whatever their desire to spend is, be they on the left or the right. I really don't see a difference, excluding the Clintonian drop during the boom years before 2000. (which, with a Democratic executive and Republican legislature, both sides probably claim credit for)

Here's a nice breakdown so you can see what I'm talking about : http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

So, I guess the conclusion is that fiscal conservatives love Jimmy Carter, and that how you cast your vote mostly determines what you want to overspend on.

You'll also note, according to this chart, that the US government has not "lived within its means" since 1957, right around when Eisenhower was warning you about the Military-Industrial-Complex. (and he had a Democratic House and Senate that year, too!) I doubt that's a coincidence. Of course, the top tax bracket was 91%, and that probably helped quite a bit..

[plainjane]

One prime exemple is gay marriage. [...] I married a damn fine woman so I can totally understand the desire to marry one.

This line made my morning.

[Samsam]

One prime exemple is gay marriage. [...] I married a damn fine woman so I can totally understand the desire to marry one.

This line made my morning.

Same here :)

[renbutler]

I'm sure renbutler was getting at this, but neither position is genuine.  Both reek of a "get the government out of my medicare" mentality.  I.e. you want the government out of your life, except where you want it in your life.  What would the world really look like if the government stayed out of our lives?  You may fantasize about and wish for such a world, but I guarantee you've never experienced anything remotely like it. 

Unless you really wanted that anarchism checkbox.

Keeping the government "out of my life" isn't a literal hope for me. I was simply paralleling the language used by tomsang. It's certainly an oversimplification of what I actually want.

[renbutler]

Social conservatives tend to be "traditional" and less questioning of the status quo.  (Get married, buy house in the 'burbs, have 2.5 kids, etc.) 

That's hardly the "status quo" these days, and the evidence is far more than anecdotal.

[renbutler]

One prime exemple is gay marriage. Frankly why would I care and why does the government get to choose who can or can't marry. I understand for child brides since they are not old enough to give a well-informed consent buy why can't a woman marry a woman? I married a damn fine woman so I can totally understand the desire to marry one.

And that's one area where I actually have a socially libertarian streak. Not only should government stay out of gay marriage, they should stay out of marriage altogether. There should be completely separate laws that allow people to leave their money to whomever they want, share benefits with whomever they want, and allow hospital visitation to whomever they want.

BTW, I am married to a person of the opposite sex, and I couldn't care less whether the government endorses it in any way.

Also, we are acquaintanances with a gay couple who call themselves married (which would not be technically legal here). I don't know if they ever had a ceremony, nor do I care. But, as far as I am concerned, they can enter whatever kind of partnership they want without the government having to know anything about it. This is coming from a fairly conservative Catholic. I just don't care what they do. It's between them and God, and nobody else.

This is actually the view of most conservatives I know. Then again, I don't tend to associate with many evangenical Christians (not by choice, just by happenstance).

[olivia]

Social conservatives tend to be "traditional" and less questioning of the status quo.  (Get married, buy house in the 'burbs, have 2.5 kids, etc.)

The party I admire is the frugal one, the party I oppose is consumerist...

Called it.

Called what?

[Gerard]

None of the poll choices were lefty enough for me, but I benefit financially from current conservative Canadian policies, because I'm a big earner. So maybe I should be careful what I wish for! :-)

As far as explaining all these liberal Mustachian respondents, in addition to age we might consider level of education, which in my country at least correlates pretty closely with liberal views and voting. Mustachians are a pretty educated bunch.

On another topic (as I seem to be unable to focus today), I wonder about the effect of ideologizing of shopping in the Bush years. Wasn't it the patriotic duty of Americans to go to the mall, or something? I think there are plenty of lovely frugal conservative people out there, but it seems like their voices don't get heard in the mainstream. Which sucks, because it makes it harder for all of us to find common ground. I mean, based on my tightwaddery, I align with Christian Mom websites.

[hybrid]

One prime exemple is gay marriage. Frankly why would I care and why does the government get to choose who can or can't marry. I understand for child brides since they are not old enough to give a well-informed consent buy why can't a woman marry a woman? I married a damn fine woman so I can totally understand the desire to marry one.

And that's one area where I actually have a socially libertarian streak. Not only should government stay out of gay marriage, they should stay out of marriage altogether. There should be completely separate laws that allow people to leave their money to whomever they want, share benefits with whomever they want, and allow hospital visitation to whomever they want.

BTW, I am married to a person of the opposite sex, and I couldn't care less whether the government endorses it in any way.

Also, we are acquaintanances with a gay couple who call themselves married (which would not be technically legal here). I don't know if they ever had a ceremony, nor do I care. But, as far as I am concerned, they can enter whatever kind of partnership they want without the government having to know anything about it. This is coming from a fairly conservative Catholic. I just don't care what they do. It's between them and God, and nobody else.

This is actually the view of most conservatives I know. Then again, I don't tend to associate with many evangenical Christians (not by choice, just by happenstance).

Renbutler, after reading a lot of your posts you sound more of a fiscal conservative / social libertarian to me.  The social conservatives I know are more than happy to get government involved in things they support, such as state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, getting abortion outlawed, the supposed War on Christmas each year (don't get me started on that one), keeping marijuana illegal, etc.  Frankly, you sound a lot more like a Ron Paul supporter than a Michelle Bachmann supporter on social issues.  Am I wrong?

[renbutler]

Renbutler, after reading a lot of your posts you sound more of a fiscal conservative / social libertarian to me.  The social conservatives I know are more than happy to get government involved in things they support, such as state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, getting abortion outlawed, the supposed War on Christmas each year (don't get me started on that one), keeping marijuana illegal, etc.  Frankly, you sound a lot more like a Ron Paul supporter than a Michelle Bachmann supporter on social issues.  Am I wrong?

Well, let me address each of those topics.

Gay marriage. Government should stay out of marriage PERIOD. Straight or gay. I suppose in that regard I am libertarian. My personal views on homosexuality are similar to the Catholic Church's: hate the sin, love the sinner. We have gay friends who consider themselves married (not legally, though). I have no problem with that. If it's a problem as the church says, then God will deal with it. I will still consider them friends, as all my friends sin in one way or another -- as do I. Bottom line though: none of it is the government's business. I certainly don't care that government endorses my marriage. That's meaningless to me.

Abortion. I don't consider this a sex issue. Some like to absurdly accuse pro-lifers of "wanting to control a woman's body." Perhaps there are a few depraved idiots who approach it that way. But for me, and virtually every pro-lifer I know, the issue is about protecting the life of an innocent child. I know that some don't consider a fetus "life." Both sides are well armed with contradictory scientific evidence. I'm not hear to rehash that old debate. I just believe that innocent life should be protected (and I give money to groups who ensure that those "unwanted" children will be taken care of and given a life of dignity). But if the mother's life is in danger, I don't believe her life should be traded for the child's. In this regard, I'm conservative.

War on Christmas. This is such a small issue, IMO, even in conservative circles. I have no problem with companies doing what's best for business by being all-inclusive. I do think it's absurd, however, to try to ban secular images like Christmas trees from public grounds. Some people have no concept of what the first amendment really says. In this regard, I lean conservative, but it's not really a major deal to me.

Marijuana. My view on this is changing a bit. I really think using marijuana is STUPID. There's no redeeming quality to it, and it robs people of energy and ambition. I see it a lot like alcohol: the only reason to use it is if you don't really like yourself when you're not full of mind-altering chemicals. HOWEVER, is there any specific reason to outlaw it? I don't know. On this issue, I'm on the fence.

Death penalty and war (not mentioned above). I take my Church's stance on this one: there is almost never any justification for either of these. Neither should be explicitly banned, but the standards that must be met for them are extremely stringent. In this regard, I suppose I'm liberal (that's difficult to write!).

Regulating behavior (not mentioned above). I wouldn't call regulating behavior "conservative." I hate it when liberal government tries to force people into cars they don't want, or to ban food and beverages that are unhealthful. I support the idea behind improving health and the environment -- I just think it's a horrible idea for the government to legislate it through bans on certain personal behaviors. In this regard, I suppose I am a hybrid of libertarian/conservative.

Bottom line: I will address every issue on its own merits, and my opinions do change over time. I wish more people ON ALL SIDES would open their minds a bit and escape the trappings of extreme ideology and "us versus them" mentality of party politics.

[catmustache]

Socially I am liberal as well, as I want a government that stays our of our lives.

That's kind of funny, because socially I lean conservative, as I want a government that stays out of our lives.

One prime exemple is gay marriage. Frankly why would I care and why does the government get to choose who can or can't marry. I understand for child brides since they are not old enough to give a well-informed consent buy why can't a woman marry a woman? I married a damn fine woman so I can totally understand the desire to marry one.

However I want the government to balance the books and minimize taxes so I am definitely a fiscal conservative.

As one of the social liberal/ fiscal conservative voters, I agree with this to some extent. For me, I want a government that does it's job economically and stays out of people's personal lives as much as possible, which for me signifies not caring a lot about what people do, whether it's abortion, gay marriage, or whatever else.

I think a lot of mustachians really want the freedom to do whatever they want with their lives and think other people should be afforded that same freedom (so social liberality), but feel like rampant spending, even if the government, may be a bad thing (so fiscal conservatism). Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but I see it as not caring about what people/governments do as long as it doesn't impact your own bottom line.

[renbutler]

As one of the social liberal/ fiscal conservative voters, I agree with this to some extent. For me, I want a government that does it's job economically and stays out of people's personal lives as much as possible, which for me signifies not caring a lot about what people do, whether it's abortion, gay marriage, or whatever else.

I think a lot of mustachians really want the freedom to do whatever they want with their lives and think other people should be afforded that same freedom (so social liberality), but feel like rampant spending, even if the government, may be a bad thing (so fiscal conservatism). Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but I see it as not caring about what people/governments do as long as it doesn't impact your own bottom line.

The only problem with that is liberal politicians are just as guilty of getting into people's personal lives in the way they ban certain foods and beverages, or try to regulate the way people drive.

I know the argument is that good health and environmental stewardship for the individual are supposed to improve things for everybody, but conservative regulators of behavior try to make the same argument as a justification for THEIR actions.

In other words, no ideology or party has a monopoly on interfering with personal freedom.

[catmustache]

The only problem with that is liberal politicians are just as guilty of getting into people's personal lives in the way they ban certain foods and beverages, or try to regulate the way people drive.

I know the argument is that good health and environmental stewardship for the individual are supposed to improve things for everybody, but conservative regulators of behavior try to make the same argument as a justification for THEIR actions.

In other words, no ideology or party has a monopoly on interfering with personal freedom.

I'd agree with that and I'd also be opposed to the measures that intervene in people's personal lives. I guess I lean more socially libertarian than liberal, per se, but that's not really a thing (or is it?), though I'd be for some government intervention if a group's rights are being restricted by the majority, which typically ends up making me seem more liberal. I typically will pay more attention to a candidate's economic policies than social, unless they support something I completely disagree with.

[arebelspy]

Moderator Note: Moved thread to Off Topic.

It got enough exposure in the Welcome & General Discussion for the last 4 days for the poll to run properly (176 votes so far), and the political stuff mostly belongs in OT.

Cheers.

[hybrid]

Regulating behavior (not mentioned above). I wouldn't call regulating behavior "conservative." I hate it when liberal government tries to force people into cars they don't want, or to ban food and beverages that are unhealthful. I support the idea behind improving health and the environment -- I just think it's a horrible idea for the government to legislate it through bans on certain personal behaviors. In this regard, I suppose I am a hybrid of libertarian/conservative.

Bottom line: I will address every issue on its own merits, and my opinions do change over time. I wish more people ON ALL SIDES would open their minds a bit and escape the trappings of extreme ideology and "us versus them" mentality of party politics.

Nicely written.  I suspect what you consider to be conservative I consider to be libertarian.  I know lots and lots of conservatives that pine on about FREEDOM (their caps) while simultaneously trying to restrict the freedoms of others.  While you may consider marijuana to be a poor choice, I think you and I might find common ground in making marijuana illegal a poorer choice, as the net effect has been to create a prohibition environment.  Outlawing marijuana fills our overflowing prisons needlessly and fosters organized crime.  And people are going to continue to smoke it whether you or I approve or not.  Better to legalize and tax the hell out of it as far as I am concerned.  As a market-oriented guy who probably isn't looking to outlaw alcohol, I think you can see my point here.

In regards to abortion, the day you can readily buy life insurance for an eight week fetus and the same funeral is readily given for an eight week miscarriage as a stillborn child, then I'll get on board with the premise that society treats the preborn as equivalent to those in the world already.    For thousands of years society has separated the potential for children from those that are born into the world.  And as a modern example, there are fewer Downs kids these days because potential parents who learn of the condition early in the pregnancy are unwilling to deliver.  Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's a decision that I feel is strictly one for the parents alone and nobody else.     

[davisgang90]

Is this poll for 'Murricans only?
I think it could skew your results quite a lot otherwise. "Conservatives" in many countries to the left of your Democrats on many issues. Libertarian isn't really a thing outside of the USA, I don't think.

Libertarian isn't much of a thing inside the USA either, just a way for folks to vote Democrat without pulling the lever for a Democrat. ; > )

[arebelspy]

Libertarian isn't much of a thing inside the USA either, just a way for folks to vote Democrat without pulling the lever for a Democrat. ; > )

It's so sad, it makes me laugh.

I fully disagree.

[Lans Holman]

Is this poll for 'Murricans only?
I think it could skew your results quite a lot otherwise. "Conservatives" in many countries to the left of your Democrats on many issues. Libertarian isn't really a thing outside of the USA, I don't think.

Libertarian isn't much of a thing inside the USA either, just a way for folks to vote Democrat without pulling the lever for a Democrat. ; > )

Funny, I'd always heard Libertarians described as just Republicans who like to smoke weed.

[Eric]

Marijuana. My view on this is changing a bit. I really think using marijuana is STUPID. There's no redeeming quality to it, and it robs people of energy and ambition. I see it a lot like alcohol: the only reason to use it is if you don't really like yourself when you're not full of mind-altering chemicals. HOWEVER, is there any specific reason to outlaw it? I don't know. On this issue, I'm on the fence.

I hate seeing these tired stereotypes.  All people in all walks of life use marijuana.  From the factory worker and fast food cook to the lawyer, doctor, and accountant.  It doesn't rob you of energy or ambition.  That's just nonsense and sounds like it's straight out of Reefer Madness.  You know what I like to do when stoned?  I like to hike.  A nice 8-10 mile hike is about the best thing going.  Does that sound like marijuana is robbing my energy?

And the fact that you think something has to be wrong with someone to use it is practically laughable.  People have been enjoying marijuana for thousands of years.  It's FUN!  I like myself sober and I like myself stoned and I like myself when drinking.  Imagine that!

As far as it having no redeeming qualities, well I'm sure you've heard of medical marijuana.  Marijuana can be used for dozens of medical conditions without the costs or side affects associated with Big Pharma.  In fact, it's something of a miracle drug.  Even if you are lucky enough to not have to rely on marijuana as medicine, self medicating with it can help you relax, de-stress, and generally improve your mood almost immediately.

Lastly, it's almost completely harmless for adults.  You can't overdose.  It's not physically addictive.  And you can even vaporize it or cook with it to completely eliminate the small risk of inhaling a tiny amount of smoke.

[Spork]

Marijuana. My view on this is changing a bit. I really think using marijuana is STUPID. There's no redeeming quality to it, and it robs people of energy and ambition. I see it a lot like alcohol: the only reason to use it is if you don't really like yourself when you're not full of mind-altering chemicals. HOWEVER, is there any specific reason to outlaw it? I don't know. On this issue, I'm on the fence.

I hate seeing these tired stereotypes.  All people in all walks of life use marijuana.  From the factory worker and fast food cook to the lawyer, doctor, and accountant.  It doesn't rob you of energy or ambition.  That's just nonsense and sounds like it's straight out of Reefer Madness.  You know what I like to do when stoned?  I like to hike.  A nice 8-10 mile hike is about the best thing going.  Does that sound like marijuana is robbing my energy?

It's only a stereotype because there is some amount of truth to it.  I've certainly known folks that walked off the deep end and did nothing but toke all day every day until they became a street urchin.  Sound hyperbolic?  It is... and yet: I've known that guy.  The same can be said of alcohol or internet porn or any number of other things.  It is not the norm, but it does happen.


But: that said -- I could give a rat's ass if it was legal and if it was, I might use it on occasion.  As it is not: I don't just because the risk/reward isn't there for me. 

caveat: I'm an upper 40-something that's been around a while.  I'm not someone that's never tried the stuff.... though it's been 25+ years since I've used it.

[renbutler]

Funny, I'd always heard Libertarians described as just Republicans who like to smoke weed.

Ha, that's good.

I hate the two-party system, but the Republicans tend to represent my overall views better than Democrats. That said, I have voted for a handful of Libertarians. It would be a lot easier to do so a.) if they had a real chance to win around here (they don't) and b.) if Libertarians would stick to basic economic issues (I really don't want to legalize prostitution).

Not that Republicans (nor Democrats) stick mainly to economics either, sadly. And I really hate the team mentality (us versus them) of party politics. I am NOT a Republican, even when I vote for them most of the time.

BTW, I don't smoke weed either. I do get the feeling that most college kids supported Ron Paul for that single issue. LOL

[Eric]

Marijuana. My view on this is changing a bit. I really think using marijuana is STUPID. There's no redeeming quality to it, and it robs people of energy and ambition. I see it a lot like alcohol: the only reason to use it is if you don't really like yourself when you're not full of mind-altering chemicals. HOWEVER, is there any specific reason to outlaw it? I don't know. On this issue, I'm on the fence.

I hate seeing these tired stereotypes.  All people in all walks of life use marijuana.  From the factory worker and fast food cook to the lawyer, doctor, and accountant.  It doesn't rob you of energy or ambition.  That's just nonsense and sounds like it's straight out of Reefer Madness.  You know what I like to do when stoned?  I like to hike.  A nice 8-10 mile hike is about the best thing going.  Does that sound like marijuana is robbing my energy?

It's only a stereotype because there is some amount of truth to it.  I've certainly known folks that walked off the deep end and did nothing but toke all day every day until they became a street urchin.  Sound hyperbolic?  It is... and yet: I've known that guy.  The same can be said of alcohol or internet porn or any number of other things.  It is not the norm, but it does happen.


But: that said -- I could give a rat's ass if it was legal and if it was, I might use it on occasion.  As it is not: I don't just because the risk/reward isn't there for me. 

caveat: I'm an upper 40-something that's been around a while.  I'm not someone that's never tried the stuff.... though it's been 25+ years since I've used it.

I actually think it's a selection bias problem.  I know more stoner lawyers, by far, than any other profession.  Yet I doubt there's a correlation between smoking marijuana and passing the bar.  Lazy people will be lazy with or without marijuana.

[renbutler]

It's only a stereotype because there is some amount of truth to it.  I've certainly known folks that walked off the deep end and did nothing but toke all day every day until they became a street urchin.  Sound hyperbolic?  It is... and yet: I've known that guy.  The same can be said of alcohol or internet porn or any number of other things.  It is not the norm, but it does happen.

I've also known those guys (and gals). It doesn't mean that every person is significantly affected by it in a negative way. I just don't see it benefiting people either. Same way with alcohol, which I also choose not to consume. And I'm not really talking about the "glass of wine with dinner" crowd. Maybe the people who can use alcohol responsibly are similar to people who can smoke dope responsibly, and the rest give them a bad name.

Why is alcohol legal and marijuana isn't? I don't know. It does seem inconsistent. But I'm not ready to say we need to legalize pot just to be consistent.

[Spork]

It's only a stereotype because there is some amount of truth to it.  I've certainly known folks that walked off the deep end and did nothing but toke all day every day until they became a street urchin.  Sound hyperbolic?  It is... and yet: I've known that guy.  The same can be said of alcohol or internet porn or any number of other things.  It is not the norm, but it does happen.

I've also known those guys (and gals). It doesn't mean that every person is significantly affected by it in a negative way. I just don't see it benefiting people either. Same way with alcohol, which I also choose not to consume. And I'm not really talking about the "glass of wine with dinner" crowd. Maybe the people who can use alcohol responsibly are similar to people who can smoke dope responsibly, and the rest give them a bad name.

Why is alcohol legal and marijuana isn't? I don't know. It does seem inconsistent. But I'm not ready to say we need to legalize pot just to be consistent.

The overall generalization here is "why the hell does the government care?"  Adults should be able to sort out the risks they're willing to take and accept the rewards/downfalls that become them. 

There is a creeping nanny-statism that wants to protect us from ourselves.  Outlawing heroin begets outlawing pot, which begets outlawing fatty foods/sugary drinks, etc.

Generally to protect liberty, you have to take a stance on things you don't particularly care for.  If you want to protect free speech, you have to protect the idiot KKK's ability to speak freely.  If you want to protect freedom of the press, you have to protect Larry Flint's ability to publish porn.

The answer given is normally "violent crime", "DUI", etc.   Okay, fine: enforce laws violated with violent crime.  Enforce DUI.

[Crash87]

I suppose I prefer a smaller government, but I honestly think big and small work fine. Pay more taxes for more government services or pay less in taxes and pay more for services on our own, I don't really care. We just need to pick which damn road we are going to travel. This pay less in taxes but magically still get everything policy isn't working out to well.

[randymarsh]

I've also known those guys (and gals). It doesn't mean that every person is significantly affected by it in a negative way. I just don't see it benefiting people either. Same way with alcohol, which I also choose not to consume. And I'm not really talking about the "glass of wine with dinner" crowd. Maybe the people who can use alcohol responsibly are similar to people who can smoke dope responsibly, and the rest give them a bad name.

Why is alcohol legal and marijuana isn't? I don't know. It does seem inconsistent. But I'm not ready to say we need to legalize pot just to be consistent.

I'll be the one to say that I believe marijuana has benefitted me. I don't think it's some miracle drug that solves all of society's ills, but I think I can say with some confidence that it's been good for me. I feel like it's given me a different perspective on things, helped me make new friends, and have a wider set of life experiences. That all makes me a better person even when I'm sober.

renbutler, you say you're not ready to legalize it just to be consistent, but doesn't logic dictate that it should be legal? It's verifiably less harmful than alcohol. Alcohol is legal (with restrictions). Therefore, pot should be legal also. Why should the government be deciding what "unhealthy" substances are OK for adults to put into their own bodies?

You've said you lean conservative and want the government out of our lives. But what if I want my life to partly consist of getting baked everyday? So what if I "really don't like myself"?

[StarswirlTheMustached]

I suppose I'm a socialist libertarian socially liberal  burkean conservative... or something. Oy. Maybe I'm just Starswirl, and don't fit into a box very well. In any case, reading this thread, I find myself finding something to agree with in everyone's viewpoints.

Socialist: Someone once said that the great tragedy of the 20th century is that everything the Communists said about themselves was a lie, but everything they said about Capitalism was true. My ideal society is something like the Mondragon Model on the economic plane: worker-owned and democratically run co-operatives competing within a free market. Why are liberty and democracy good for our governments but not our workplaces?

Libertarian: The role of government is to preserve the commons-- clean air, clean water, safe public spaces, etc. After that people should be free to make whatever mistakes they wish*, which brings me to the social sphere, I guess.

*that's for individuals, though. Corporate person-hood is a crock and the business sector, especially if it's for-profit and not following my favourite model, needs to be regulated out the arse to avoid becoming predatory. Trust busting is a necessary task of preserving the commons of an open market: too big to fail is to big to exist.

Conservative: I believe that old, time-honoured values must have survived for a reason, in the Darwinian world of memes, and tend to support them. The wisdom of our forefathers is that monogamy is good and usury is bad, to pick two examples. So therefore, I'll stay monogamous and "neither a borrower nor lender be" but if others do choose otherwise? It's not my problem. Am I my brother's keeper? Actually, my brother is in some kind of wacky bisexual open group marriage thing that Robert A. Heinlen would have just loved, and I'm happy for him as long as it works, though I really think it's going to explode spectacularly in his face one of these days. If that sounds more liberal than conservative, I suppose it's because of how dogmatic and authoritarian modern conservatives are. Burkean conservatism is something different, and actually about conserving things: don't mess with success, don't change what works. Really, my social philosophy stems from expanding the very useful (and time-honoured) ideal of freedom of religion into other aspects of the social sphere. You can go to your church on Sunday and pretend to be cannibals, and I'll worship Solarix Invicta and Luna Somniantis every sunset and we can all go to hell in our own ways. There are no right answers, and trying to enforce any one social viewpoint at this point would be radical change, which Burkean conservatism abhors.

I suppose I prefer a smaller government, but I honestly think big and small work fine. Pay more taxes for more government services or pay less in taxes and pay more for services on our own, I don't really care. We just need to pick which damn road we are going to travel. This pay less in taxes but magically still get everything policy isn't working out to well.

Eeyup. No argument here.

[renbutler]

I'll be the one to say that I believe marijuana has benefitted me. I don't think it's some miracle drug that solves all of society's ills, but I think I can say with some confidence that it's been good for me. I feel like it's given me a different perspective on things, helped me make new friends, and have a wider set of life experiences. That all makes me a better person even when I'm sober.

renbutler, you say you're not ready to legalize it just to be consistent, but doesn't logic dictate that it should be legal? It's verifiably less harmful than alcohol. Alcohol is legal (with restrictions). Therefore, pot should be legal also. Why should the government be deciding what "unhealthy" substances are OK for adults to put into their own bodies?

You've said you lean conservative and want the government out of our lives. But what if I want my life to partly consist of getting baked everyday? So what if I "really don't like myself"?

I said I'm on the fence. If you oversimplify the issue, of course it sounds like an easy choice. But it's still an oversimplification.

Anyway, I don't really buy the "given me a different perspective," "helped me make new friends," and "have a wider set of experiences" argument. There are literally thousands of different ways to accomplish those things without inhaling chemicals.

I'm not going to say definitively that there can never be anything good about smoking dope. But I'm going to say your justification wasn't very convincing at all.

[grantmeaname]

It's verifiably less harmful than alcohol. Alcohol is legal (with restrictions). Therefore, pot should be legal also.

Pot prevents heart disease? Increases HDL? Decreases diabetes risk? Protects against stones in the urinary tract? Increases bone density? Fascinating.

Why should the government be deciding what "unhealthy" substances are OK for adults to put into their own bodies?

Does the phrase "negative externalities" mean anything to you? There's your answer.

[Eric]

It's verifiably less harmful than alcohol. Alcohol is legal (with restrictions). Therefore, pot should be legal also.

Pot prevents heart disease? Increases HDL? Decreases diabetes risk? Protects against stones in the urinary tract? Increases bone density? Fascinating.

Huh?  Just because moderate alcohol consumption has some benefits, marijuana cannot be less harmful or more beneficial because it works different than alcohol?  You're usually more rational than that grantmeaname.

[Eric]

Why should the government be deciding what "unhealthy" substances are OK for adults to put into their own bodies?

Does the phrase "negative externalities" mean anything to you? There's your answer.

Which, ironically, is exactly the reason marijuana should be legal.  We spend billions on prisons and police and directly contribute to the vast amounts of power held by drug cartels and gangs.  All for what?  To appease the alcohol and pharmacological lobbyists?  Recreational use is now legal in two states.  It's been quasi-legal in California for decades.  For the first time, greater than 50% of people think it should be legal and view it as no big deal.  And the science backs that claim up. 

[dragoncar]

It's verifiably less harmful than alcohol. Alcohol is legal (with restrictions). Therefore, pot should be legal also.

Pot prevents heart disease? Increases HDL? Decreases diabetes risk? Protects against stones in the urinary tract? Increases bone density? Fascinating.

Of course, none of those reasons are why alcohol is legal. 

[davisgang90]

Is this poll for 'Murricans only?
I think it could skew your results quite a lot otherwise. "Conservatives" in many countries to the left of your Democrats on many issues. Libertarian isn't really a thing outside of the USA, I don't think.

Libertarian isn't much of a thing inside the USA either, just a way for folks to vote Democrat without pulling the lever for a Democrat. ; > )

Funny, I'd always heard Libertarians described as just Republicans who like to smoke weed.

Exactly, folks who otherwise would vote Republican vote for the incredibly long shot Libertarian candidate instead.  Democrats love that.

I think marijuana should be legal also.  Way too much time and effort wasted on trying to ban it, kinda like prohibition...

[grantmeaname]

Huh?  Just because moderate alcohol consumption has some benefits, marijuana cannot be less harmful or more beneficial because it works different than alcohol?  You're usually more rational than that grantmeaname.

I'm just saying it's not "verifiably less harmful", it's only "less harmful in thefinancialstudent's opinion", which is typically not the basis for legislation.

Which, ironically, is exactly the reason marijuana should be legal.  We spend billions on prisons and police and directly contribute to the vast amounts of power held by drug cartels and gangs.  All for what?  To appease the alcohol and pharmacological lobbyists?

I don't see how dramatically increasing the size of the market would do much harm to Mexican drug cartels.

Recreational use is now legal in two states.

O Rly?

And the science backs that claim up.

Bullshit. "Science" has no opinions on the legalization of pot. If you want "the science" to support your argument, cite it.

[Spork]

Which, ironically, is exactly the reason marijuana should be legal.  We spend billions on prisons and police and directly contribute to the vast amounts of power held by drug cartels and gangs.  All for what?  To appease the alcohol and pharmacological lobbyists?

I don't see how dramatically increasing the size of the market would do much harm to Mexican drug cartels.

If we're relating this to alcohol, that's exactly what happened.  When alcohol was illegal, there was an organized crime cartel that ran it.  The reason: there was demand enough that drove the price high enough that the risk was worth the outcome.  Once alcohol became legal, that portion of organized crime shrank. 

We also have an ungodly number of drug offenders in prisons.  This has got to cost something, right?  In addition to the cost of supporting them in prison, I'm pretty sure our prison system doesn't "reform" them -- it teaches them to be criminals.    They go in dumb kids that made stupid choices and come out badass gangbangers.  It's sort of a Lord of the Flies society in there. 

[wepner]

Which, ironically, is exactly the reason marijuana should be legal.  We spend billions on prisons and police and directly contribute to the vast amounts of power held by drug cartels and gangs.  All for what?  To appease the alcohol and pharmacological lobbyists?

I don't see how dramatically increasing the size of the market would do much harm to Mexican drug cartels.

I've never been more disappointed in you grant. You don't think that prohibition strengthened organized crime in the US? Or that repealing prohibition weakened it? Do you care to explain what about marijuana and Mexican drug cartels is different enough to cause the exact opposite effect. Do you think that there are people out there now that want to smoke weed but can't or won't because its illegal, but then once it becomes legal will seek out drug dealers to buy there weed from? Otherwise I'm not even sure what you even mean by increasing the size of the market.

Do you think that eliminating their monopoly and offering a safer legal alternative to them will strengthen Mexican Drug cartels?

[Eric]

Which, ironically, is exactly the reason marijuana should be legal.  We spend billions on prisons and police and directly contribute to the vast amounts of power held by drug cartels and gangs.  All for what?  To appease the alcohol and pharmacological lobbyists?

I don't see how dramatically increasing the size of the market would do much harm to Mexican drug cartels.

How would legalizing it dramatically increase the size of the market?  All it would do is move the market out of the shadows and into legitimacy.  It's not like there are people lined up who want to smoke but can't find any.  Marijuana is EVERYWHERE!

But supply would be radically different.  Supply would be local, fresh, and of higher quality than anything that would be shipped 2000 miles.  In essence, is would take the vast majority of the supply away from cartels and put it into the hands of local growers.  The only thing that stops anyone from growing is the risk of harsh "dealer" penalties, including seizure of property.  Take that away, and no one would buy that Mexican ditch weed ever again.

But don't take my word for it.  Here's former Mexican President Vicente Fox saying the same thing:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/30/us/washington-marijuana-fox

Who knows more about it than a man who's job it was to fight it for four years?

[Spork]

How would legalizing it dramatically increase the size of the market?  All it would do is move the market out of the shadows and into legitimacy.  It's not like there are people lined up who want to smoke but can't find any.  Marijuana is EVERYWHERE!

Well, to be fair, it would probably increase the market somewhat.  I don't use it because the risk/reward isn't there.  I don't want to face prosecution.  I don't want to face possibly being fired for "illegal drug use."  I don't want to use a product sold by a thug on the street.  I don't want to grow it as I don't want my property seized without due process.

...but if I could buy legal, clean products from RJ Reynolds or if my green thumb wife could grow it in the garden, I might consider occasional use.  Even then... maybe not.

[wepner]

Well, to be fair, it would probably increase the market somewhat.  I don't use it because the risk/reward isn't there.  I don't want to face prosecution.  I don't want to face possibly being fired for "illegal drug use."  I don't want to use a product sold by a thug on the street.  I don't want to grow it as I don't want my property seized without due process.

...but if I could buy legal, clean products from RJ Reynolds or if my green thumb wife could grow it in the garden, I might consider occasional use.  Even then... maybe not.

Avoiding illegal drug dealers (which there would be even if marijuana was legalized and "thugs on the street" would not really put you in the market for marijuana from Mexican Drug cartels would it?

[Spork]

Well, to be fair, it would probably increase the market somewhat.  I don't use it because the risk/reward isn't there.  I don't want to face prosecution.  I don't want to face possibly being fired for "illegal drug use."  I don't want to use a product sold by a thug on the street.  I don't want to grow it as I don't want my property seized without due process.

...but if I could buy legal, clean products from RJ Reynolds or if my green thumb wife could grow it in the garden, I might consider occasional use.  Even then... maybe not.

Avoiding illegal drug dealers (which there would be even if marijuana was legalized and "thugs on the street" would not really put you in the market for marijuana from Mexican Drug cartels would it?

The way I read Grant's reply (maybe incorrect, but how I read it) was "making it legal will increase the market".  I am pretty sure that would make Mexican cartels find something else to do or someone else to sell to.  But the market for marijuana would still probably increase, regardless of the supplier.

[wepner]

I'm with you that the market would increase somewhat, but it seems we are reading grantmeaname's post differently.

He says that he doesn't see how "dramatically increasing the size of the market" for weed "would do much to harm" drug cartels, but it seems that you, eric and myself are all in agreement that other aspects of legalizing marijuana would in fact harm mexican drug cartels.