I don't know if by "you" you literally mean me, or if that's the 'royal' you. But if you mean me I was merely posing a question, not prescribing any answers. I was very careful to include all the "key words" you've identified to avoid revealing bias.

I *do* have a position on most of those, but that position likely isn't what you think it is.

Which part?

a) That climate change exists.
b) That climate change is caused by human behavior
c) That the change might be have significant negative effects
d) That altering human behavior could ameliorate c)
e) That the costs of d) might exceed the benefits of d)
f) That d) can be administered effectively by government(s)

Wooosh.

Or Microsoft coming out with new versions of Windows as long as the licensing revenue keeps rolling in.

Well they don't even know what a cube is, apparently.

Or maybe men are identified by the proxy billing info for porn sites.

I prefer regulated monopoly over unregulated monopoly.

Hopefully the "low staff" was intentional, and not a side effect.

Oh, I totally agree. Just pointing out that a little caution is in order. Doing the opposite of something that failed does not necessarily gaurantee success.

And Portugal isn't exactly a golden model.

http://www.spiegel.de/internat...

"We haven't found some miracle cure," Goulão says. Still, taking stock after nearly 12 years, his conclusion is, "Decriminalization hasn't made the problem worse."

I'd hope so. I'd sign up for that. But it approaches the unicorns and rainbows plan. Legalizing also tends to make things lower cost. And when something costs less is more easily available, there are upward pessures on demand and usage. Also drugs gangs don't magically disappear with legalization. They have a vested interest in preserving market share. I'm speaking using mostly anecdotal evidence, but the drug gangs have not at all disappeared from the states that have effectively legalized marijuana. They welcome the increased demand. It's not even clear if they're actually opposed to legalization.

That's an issue with "how," not "what."

It's a problem. But making them legal trades one set of problems in for another set of problems. Countries that have tried legalization in various ways aren't what I'd call "problem-free."

But any power, government or otherwise, will be abused to some degree. Just because the government was able to self-identify some abuse, is not, in itself, particularly interesting. Because the power is given to people. The question is how much surveillance power to allow, and what process governs it. Eliminating all surveillance is pretty draconian in flipping the balance of power perhaps too far in favor of actual criminals.

"Domestic enemies"

What's your definition of enemy? Anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the Constitution?

I think there are plenty of historical examples of the out-gunned side losing a war....most of the time.