Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Libertarian Party presidential candidate: Lower the Drinking Age

GaryJohnson2012.com

From interview with the Daily Caller:
“I’m always the guy to advocate for lower ages. I just believe that the lower the age the better you come to grips with what these substances are,” the Libertarian Party presidential candidate said.

“If you can go to Iraq and die, or Afghanistan and die as a service man or women at 18, and you can’t drink — I’m sorry I don’t buy into that.”

“Hypothetically no, there shouldn’t be [a drinking age],” Johnson said, “but the lower the age the better.”
Editor's note - A policy position that we've been pushing for here at LR for years. "Old enough to fight and die for your country; old enough to drink a beer."

Our view on Johnson's 3rd party run? If you live in a deeply red state, there's no harm in voting Libertarian. The more votes the Libertarian party receives, the more the Republican Party will be convinced to move in a more libertarian direction. Of course, ALL Libertarians who live in Virginia, Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Colorado, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Oregon, ect... absolutely MUST! vote Mitt Romney!

18 comments:

Chuck said...

18 year olds don't vote. I hope he keeps marginalizing himself in this way. We need all the help we can get to defeat the bucktoothed Communist incumbent.

Chuck said...

BTW: There is no Federal Law against 18 year olds (or nine year olds for that matter) drinking beer.

ajnock1976 said...

Why should a libertarian vote for Romney Eric?

It's obvious no libertarian COULD vote for McCain in 2008 nor for Gingrich or Santorum in '12.

But why does Romney get a pass?

yours for liberty

Alan Turin

jgeleff said...

"18 year olds don't vote."

Oh, OK, so fuck 'em. They have no rights. They can't vote, make them cannon fodder, but don't let them drink.
Clown.

Chuck said...

So leftists retards like you think the Bill of Rights only applies to 18 year olds? What about the rights of 17 year olds, jigglejeff?

Whatsay, cunt?

Chuck said...

Personally, I think voting should be limited to property owners over the age of thirty. We'd still live in a free country if it were.

p.s. There is no "right" to vote in the Constitution.

jgeleff said...

"p.s. There is no "right" to vote in the Constitution."

I guess the 15th and 19th Amendments aren't in the Constitution.
Dope.

Chuck said...

Neither grant a "right", you child. Each of those amendments establish a criterion that governments are barred from using as a means of excluding those they otherwise deem eligible to vote.

You aren't very good at this, jigglejeff.

Dan said...

Chuck is right. Those amendments only specify that if the franchise is extended, then it must do so in a way that complies with Equal Protection.

Chuck said...

I wouldn't even use the word equal. It establishes no right for retarded people to vote, or for one-armed people to vote or for blind people or anybody else. States decide who can vote and who cannot. If a State decides that four year old children are to vote in that State, the Constitution is pretty much silent on that issue.

Ran / SVP said...

"Personally, I think voting should be limited to property owners over the age of thirty. We'd still live in a free country if it were."

Heh. I made an similar argument to my kid at dinner... age forty *and* pays significant taxes.

The principle of unintended consequences is lost on people who believe they can vote themselves other people's earnings and property.

Chuck said...

"The principle of unintended consequences is lost on people who believe they can vote themselves other people's earnings and property."

Just as lost as it is on any people who call universal suffrage something to be desired, let alone sought after.

Chuck said...

Sorry to ramble here, but I think the main problem is in seeing voting as something a voter does for themselves. Therein lies the fundamental problem with the universal suffrage mindset. It assumes that voting is akin to walking up to a vending machine and placing an order.

Voting is what you do for your country's sake. It should be seen as mass jury duty. That's exactly what it is.

Ran / SVP said...

Interesting. Hadn't looked at it like that.

Rather see it exactly oppositely: voting as an expression of long-term self-interest and/or the interests of one's family. It's not really up to me to determine what's in Eric's best interest nor the gal's across the street. (G-d knows I don't want her thinking she knows what's good for me.)

Which is why a Constitution that places strict limitations on gov's power is so critical.

James Joseph Gang said...

PLEAS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD LOWER THE DRINKING AGE. And I vote and am 19 so there. If I could have voted when I was 15 I would have (although admittedly 18 is probably a good starting point)

Chuck said...

Do what I did and hire people older than you and make them buy you beer. When I was 17, I hired a 24 year old.

Turning 21 was a non-event for me.

Chuck said...

"Rather see it exactly oppositely: voting as an expression of long-term self-interest and/or the interests of one's family. "

The men who founded your country didn't see it that way at all. They felt a duty to all of posterity and to their Creator to do what they knew was right regardless of self interest. Most of the signers of the Declaration paid with their lives.

And a Nation was born. A Nation unlike any other that has ever existed. It will not long exist if it's citizens don't look forward the way Her Founders did.

Selah.

Kef said...

Umm, Chuck. . .

The Federal Government DID in fact raised the drinking age. Maybe not directly, but if a certain state did not establish this law then they did not recieve federal funding. . .