The Shotgun Blog
« Rejoice! | Main | I gotta have more sleigh bells »
Sunday, April 12, 2009
B.C. Libertarians looking for candidates to run on guns and drugs platform
In freedom movement news, Paul Geddes, President of the British Columbia Libertarian Party, is asking B.C. residents if they “want to stir up some freedom?”
Geddes, #64 on the Western Standard’s "Liberty 100," is looking for candidates for the upcoming provincial election, expected to be called this Tuesday for a May 12, 2009 vote.
According to Geddes, five candidates have stepped forward so far to represent the party:
John Clarke - Vancouver-West End
Tunya Audain - West Vancouver-Capilano
Lewis Dahlby - Coquitlam-Maillardville
Jeff Monds - Port Coquitlam
Paul Geddes - Coquitlam-Burke Mountain
With 85 electoral districts to fill, there is plenty of room for a principled libertarian to make a doomed run for public office.
In an email statement, Geddes described the party’s policy aims this way:
Libertarians believe there is too much government interference in our lives. We want more choice in health care, education, car insurance, farm products and in many other areas of life where government regulations restrict voluntary capitalist acts between consenting adults.
We seek to end the government monopoly in health care by allowing private citizens to make private, voluntary arrangements with the health providers of their choice. We want to allow more experimentation in education by returning government funds to parents to allow them to purchase the education of their choice. We favour competition in car insurance. We think farmers and retailers should be freed from the marketing boards to provide the type of product that customers wish to buy. We think taxes on productive citizens should be greatly reduced as we replace many services we get from government with private, voluntary and profitable alternatives.
We also seek to end government prohibitions on drugs and guns. Driving these activities underground gives an advantage to unsavoury dealers who don't care that their violence injures otherwise innocent bystanders. In short, libertarians want a world where property is safe and citizens are free to trade with each other for mutual advantage.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by westernstandard on April 12, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
Good luck, losers.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-04-12 5:35:53 PM
You don't support gun rights, ZP?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-12 5:40:53 PM
Unfortunately, they'll have an uphill battle on both, for completely different reasons.
Restricting either drugs or guns is restricting liberty. The question is whether it's a justifiable restriction. Guns are useful tools that can either be used or abused, but in neither case does using one alter your mind or affect your ability to function properly in society.
Those drugs currently controlled, on the other hand, have little medical use and most definitely alter your mind (the main reason they're controlled).
I also suspect that the current Canadian elite currently opposes legalizing drugs because if they do, they'll be asked some very pointed questions about why a war on guns should be any more successful than one on drugs. And they'll have no answer, other than the fact that it's the opposite of what the Americans are doing, which as any Ottawa insider knows, is enough convince Canadians of the wisdom of just about anything.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-12 5:44:19 PM
"B.C. Libertarians looking for candidates to run on guns and drugs platform"
At a time when a major UK newspaper is calling Vancouver Murder City, attracting international attention, it's a bit tone deaf. We all support firearm rights I think but "Guns and Drugs" seems not well thought out. Do businessmen and people with jobs want to be associated with a party about "Guns and Drugs" at a time when both are a bit of a problem?
I encourage the Western Standard gang to support the federal Libertarian Party, seems a good fit for libertarians.
Posted by: Go Van 2010 | 2009-04-12 5:58:00 PM
Since both gun control and drug control are federal jurisdiction, I see it as a waste of time. Why not a platform within provincial jurisdiction?
A start would be the repeal of the BCHR Act and the demise of the BCHRC. A second would be the privatisation of forest and Crown land along with reviewing the ALR and its restrictions on farmers. There are other issues of course, and let us not forget the tax grab sham called carbon tax.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-04-12 6:02:37 PM
"Guns and drugs" was my title for my post, Go Van 2010.
To get a more complete understanding of their platform, read the statement by Geddes and visit their website.
I'm sure you'll find very little difference between the BC party and the federal party.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-12 6:05:43 PM
I'd love to see a libertarian party (such as the Libertarian Party) do well in an election. Unfortunately the fact that they have only 5 candidates a month before election shows that the BCLP is in bad shape. Too bad, BC is a place where the libertarian message should resonate.
Posted by: Matt | 2009-04-12 7:45:17 PM
"Guns and Drugs". We'll never reach mainstream Canada saying things like that. In fact the whole "legalize drugs" thing is being horribly mishandled. We should be working on "property rights"...and everything that would then fall into that catagory. Waving a joint at Canadian voters should keep us in the basement for pretty much eternity...
Posted by: JC | 2009-04-12 8:37:42 PM
Guns and drugs in BC.
How's that workin' out for yah so far?
Nice Olympics profile! God, what a disaster!
Llibertarian losers want more freedom but cannot understand that drugs control minds moreso than does any totalitarian dictator.
Posted by: epsilon | 2009-04-12 8:47:13 PM
Epsilon, coming from a hardcore statist such as yourself, there is little you can say in this forum that will be taken seriously...But!
Yes drugs control minds...when the user becomes addicted that is. Making a health problem illegal won't solve the problem. Letting people take resonsibility for themselves would though...its a big thought and you may noy be entirely ready for it ...yet.
Posted by: JC | 2009-04-12 8:57:08 PM
How about his majesty, the prince of Pot Marc Emery? He's always available for Libertarian politics.
He's gonna walk away from the extradition hearing in June with his head up high -a better man, with all his money handed back, a written apology from the RCMP , the DEA on the next boat out of Canada in disgrace as the Prince is carried to Ottawa, in relays, on the shoulders of 10,000,000 articulate Godfree Wipeheads ready to work together to transform Canadian Society into an out of Workers paradise.
The prohibitionists sent to the guillotine, then he will legalize & tax pot , fix all that is wrong. lame or bad in the world of straights, Christians and statist toads - starting immediately- freedom to fuck up by divine personal choice and perish in flames with the consequences of those decisions will be at every persons fingertips..there will be no more 911
From Number 003 to number 001 in just 6 weeks- you'll see
Posted by: 419 | 2009-04-12 9:25:07 PM
419 -- you entertain me with every comment, even when you're taking pot shots. No pun intended.
You truly have a vicious wit.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-04-12 9:51:01 PM
Actually, JC, drugs alter your mind with each dose. You don't need to be an addict to be drug-addled. Marijuana isn't really addicting at all, but anyone who believes it doesn't affect your mind has never read anything written by a pot smoker.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-12 10:24:42 PM
JC - your posts are so BOOOORING! "statist" "statist" nyaaa, nyaaa "statist".
Go smoke another joint. You are ruled by your dope and have no free will.
Posted by: epsilon | 2009-04-12 10:51:30 PM
You guys really sound retarded when you say drugs control your mind. Drugs are not alive they are inanimate objects, it is the state attempting to control your mind when they deny you access to drugs.
By using a drug to make me feel a certain way or think a certain way, I am in fact controlling my own mind. I am ruled by NO ONE and not even your stupid drug laws will stop me from excersising my FREE WILL!
No matter how you look at it though, people who use alcohol are in fact using a drug, a much more powerful drug than cannabis in fact, and have no business yapping about "mind control" from the drugs other people use.
Hey Mathews, have YOU ever read anything written by a pot smoker? I suggest Pierre Burton, or John Lennon. I swear you must be brain damaged from too many high balls.
Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-04-13 7:25:45 AM
You guys really sound retarded when you say drugs control your mind. Drugs are not alive they are inanimate objects, it is the state attempting to control your mind when they deny you access to drugs.
Not as retarded as you sound when you try to argue that a chemical that temporarily alters the chemical balance of an electrochemical machine (your brain) could not possibly have any effect on its operation.
By using a drug to make me feel a certain way or think a certain way, I am in fact controlling my own mind.
It is interesting to see how a raving lunatic opens an argument with a visceral denunciation of how a drug, an inanimate object, cannot control your brain, but in the very next paragraph goes on to say that they can make him think a certain way, and that this constitutes the exercise of control by himself.
I am ruled by NO ONE and not even your stupid drug laws will stop me from excersising my FREE WILL!
Unless they catch you.
No matter how you look at it though, people who use alcohol are in fact using a drug, a much more powerful drug than cannabis in fact, and have no business yapping about "mind control" from the drugs other people use..
Only true if they get drunk; most social drinkers don't. How many of your "enlightened, easygoing" friends take just one puff and then say, "That's enough; I'm driving home"? And I thought you said using drugs is actually exercising control, not surrendering it. Which is it, Doc?
Hey Mathews, have YOU ever read anything written by a pot smoker?
I just did.
The prosecution rests.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-13 10:14:35 AM
"...Hey Mathews, have YOU ever read anything written by a pot smoker?..."
sure- tons..of inarticulate whining stoner authors
the Inner circle of the Out people
1) " Blow them all" Dr Greenthumb- ... ............out of his league
2) " I hear voices: mine ! " Bud Oracle- ............out of his mind
3) "Trainwreck " Chris Bours - ..........out of control
4) "Prince " Marc Scott Emery- ...........out on bail
5)" Moneybags" Michelle Rainy- .......out of excuses
6) "Wheezin" " Greg Williams-
............ out of steam
7) " Cancer ski team" Steve Kubby-... .........out of the country
8) "Look at meeeee!" Jody Emery- .............out of office
9) " Anarc Kist" Davey Malmo Levine ...........out to lunch
and lesser illuminaries of the weed wackers who basically just shuffle along like Wipehead penguins, waiting for decrim summer to return to Antartica..
note: we position you as # 001 there, Dr Greenthumb, not that you deserve it, but it looks like you are a major player in the drug wars when you get stopped by the Cops and they Google your " gang name "
Posted by: 419 | 2009-04-13 11:40:08 AM
That's funny. :-)
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-04-13 12:15:43 PM
JC - your posts are so BOOOORING! "statist" "statist" nyaaa, nyaaa "statist".
Posted by: epsilon | 2009-04-12 10:51:30 PM
Nyaaa nyaaa? ReallY?
You're still in Elementary school?
I'm sorry for being to pointedly honest with you. I didn't realize I was speaking to a child.
Posted by: JC | 2009-04-13 6:21:33 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.