A Precedent For Tyranny

[KitemanSA]

But as Diogenes says - Prohibition is objectively correct. If you just look at things his way.

Or else!!

Yes yes, you don't like my Burkean philosophy, but surely you could come up with a better comeback than that?

Seems perfectly descriptive of your attitude. Brevity is the soul of wit.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes,

Watch this election. I think, and hope, the Republicans took plenty of notes on that.

John McCain let them do the same thing in 2008. I don't much care for Mitt, but it seems like he and his team are better prepared to deal with a system where all the referees (News Media) wear the opposing teams jerseys under their uniforms.

[Diogenes]

Or else!!

Yes yes, you don't like my Burkean philosophy, but surely you could come up with a better comeback than that?

Seems perfectly descriptive of your attitude. Brevity is the soul of wit.

Yes, but you still have to include some wit.

[MSimon]

"Prohibition" means different things to different people. It could be said that the nation has a "prohibition" on murder, and a "prohibition" on theft, or robbery.

Well of course a prohibition on harming others is probably a good thing.

But a prohibition on harming yourself? That opens the door to a lot of mischief by government. The precedent has been set. It is now just a matter of time.

[KitemanSA]

Yes yes, you don't like my Burkean philosophy, but surely you could come up with a better comeback than that?

Seems perfectly descriptive of your attitude. Brevity is the soul of wit.

Yes, but you still have to include some wit.

You need the wit to see it?

[Diogenes]

"Prohibition" means different things to different people. It could be said that the nation has a "prohibition" on murder, and a "prohibition" on theft, or robbery.

Well of course a prohibition on harming others is probably a good thing.

But a prohibition on harming yourself? That opens the door to a lot of mischief by government. The precedent has been set. It is now just a matter of time.

It is a libertarian delusion that people are only harming themselves. It's like saying I only peed in my side of the pool.

[Diogenes]

Seems perfectly descriptive of your attitude. Brevity is the soul of wit.

Yes, but you still have to include some wit.

You need the wit to see it?

You can't see it if it isn't there, So yeah.

[williatw]

"Prohibition" means different things to different people. It could be said that the nation has a "prohibition" on murder, and a "prohibition" on theft, or robbery.

Well of course a prohibition on harming others is probably a good thing.

But a prohibition on harming yourself? That opens the door to a lot of mischief by government. The precedent has been set. It is now just a matter of time.

It is a libertarian delusion that people are only harming themselves. It's like saying I only peed in my side of the pool.

Not a strict Libertarian by any means...but given the militarization of the war on drugs, the ever increasing number of body arming wearing machine gun toting ATF/DEA agents kicking in the doors of more and more Americans to little net effect accept further eroding our civil liberties I would be willing to strongly consider legalizing with strict regs. Sorry but your fav example of the Opium trade in China does not fit. It was not an example of an erosion of values/morals on the part of the Chinese people. It was an intentional effort by the occupying ruling powers at the the time the British government to make as many addicts/users as possible to offset their trade imbalance with China. It was not an example of good well intentioned regs gone bad it wasn't intended to be regulated. It produced the intended result the brits wanted more and more addicts. It would be as if today China invaded and occupied the US forcing heroin/opium on every street corner on us at gun point to get their borrowed money back. Our experience with alcohol prohibitions failure and Portugal's success with decriminalizing it for the users is far more relevent to today's current situation.

[KitemanSA]

Yes, but you still have to include some wit.

You need the wit to see it?

You can't see it if it isn't there, So yeah.

And if it is there but you can't see it, it means you lack the wit.

[MSimon]

D,

If you don't set the limit somewhere you wind up immobile. I prefer to set the limit as close as possible to the individual. To maximize liberty.

If you set the limits too broadly the commissars take over. To enforce the various limits.

The namby pamby witches say : "And it harm no one, do what thou wilt."
The magicians just say "Do What Thou Wilt."

Because you can't get away from changing the universe in ways another might consider undesirable.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. - Thomas Jefferson

[MSimon]

As a direct and proximate cause of our stupidity in this regard you can't buy brake cleaner in WalMart without being asked if you're 18. We're so worried about people getting high on various things we want to prohibit that we've made it more-attractive for kids to inhale chemicals that will destroy their minds and bodies instead of smoking a joint, which clearly comes with risks -- but not of immediate death or serious bodily injury.

You think you can prevent people from getting high? Then how come we're worried about brake cleaner, nail polish remover and lighter fluid -- all things that I bought as a youth for their original intended purposes before I was 18, and never "huffed" any of them? Why is it that we have bars everywhere where the very purpose of the establishment is to intentionally consume an intoxicant?

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=205911

[Diogenes]

Well of course a prohibition on harming others is probably a good thing.

But a prohibition on harming yourself? That opens the door to a lot of mischief by government. The precedent has been set. It is now just a matter of time.

It is a libertarian delusion that people are only harming themselves. It's like saying I only peed in my side of the pool.

Not a strict Libertarian by any means...but given the militarization of the war on drugs, the ever increasing number of body arming wearing machine gun toting ATF/DEA agents kicking in the doors of more and more Americans to little net effect accept further eroding our civil liberties I would be willing to strongly consider legalizing with strict regs. Sorry but your fav example of the Opium trade in China does not fit. It was not an example of an erosion of values/morals on the part of the Chinese people. It was an intentional effort by the occupying ruling powers at the the time the British government to make as many addicts/users as possible to offset their trade imbalance with China. It was not an example of good well intentioned regs gone bad it wasn't intended to be regulated. It produced the intended result the brits wanted more and more addicts. It would be as if today China invaded and occupied the US forcing heroin/opium on every street corner on us at gun point to get their borrowed money back. Our experience with alcohol prohibitions failure and Portugal's success with decriminalizing it for the users is far more relevent to today's current situation.

People often say "China doesn't fit." They often claim that Britain forced people to smoke the stuff.

Opium sells itself. It doesn't need any "forcing." It is my belief that simply making it available will create an ever increasing quantity of addicts. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why any country which allows it wouldn't end up just like China.

Sorry, I just put no stock in the "British made us do it" Theory.

[Diogenes]

You need the wit to see it?

You can't see it if it isn't there, So yeah.

And if it is there but you can't see it, it means you lack the wit.

You are a legend in your own mind.

[Diogenes]

D,

If you don't set the limit somewhere you wind up immobile. I prefer to set the limit as close as possible to the individual. To maximize liberty.

If you set the limits too broadly the commissars take over. To enforce the various limits.

The namby pamby witches say : "And it harm no one, do what thou wilt."
The magicians just say "Do What Thou Wilt."

Because you can't get away from changing the universe in ways another might consider undesirable.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. - Thomas Jefferson

Just ran across some information that I wanted you to see regarding this issue. I have long argued that it was Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty" which made it possible for women to not need husbands, and therefore what created much of the social destruction in poor communities.

PROPORTIONATELY, AMERICAN MALE BLACKS ARE CONVICTED OF WAY MORE CRIMES THAN ANY OTHER GROUP IN THE USA.

BUT WHEN CORRECTED FOR SINGLE-PARENTHOOD, THEN BLACKS COMMIT NO MORE CRIMES THAN WHITES FROM SINGLE-PARENT HOMES.

IN OTHER WORDS: IT AIN'T THE RACE, STUPID! IT'S SINGLE-PARENT HOMES THAT RAISE CRIMINALS.

AND IT'S NOT THE NUMBER OF ADULT PEOPLE IN THE HOME, IT'S THE PRESENCE OF A RESPONSIBLE MALE ADULT.

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2012/ ... d-150.html


Also this:

"We submit the evidence is clear that children who grow up in a family with a mother and father do better in all parameters than children without," they wrote.

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2 ... n+Power%29

[Diogenes]

As a direct and proximate cause of our stupidity in this regard you can't buy brake cleaner in WalMart without being asked if you're 18. We're so worried about people getting high on various things we want to prohibit that we've made it more-attractive for kids to inhale chemicals that will destroy their minds and bodies instead of smoking a joint, which clearly comes with risks -- but not of immediate death or serious bodily injury.

You think you can prevent people from getting high? Then how come we're worried about brake cleaner, nail polish remover and lighter fluid -- all things that I bought as a youth for their original intended purposes before I was 18, and never "huffed" any of them? Why is it that we have bars everywhere where the very purpose of the establishment is to intentionally consume an intoxicant?

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=205911

Edmund Burke covered this in my opinion.


The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered.


I take this to mean that you cannot win by the strict enforcement of the laws. You must teach people to follow the laws because it is the proper thing to do.