2010:warmest year ever since records began

[Diogenes]

A person may have a right to do unto themselves, but children do NOT have that right.

Could you clarify this statement for me? Am I to understand that you believe that if an adult provides drugs to a 10 year old who uses same, that 10 year old should be put in jail?

If you think they should be jailed, then you have stated your opinion correctly.

You are going to have to try harder than using the fallacy of false choice. The equivalency between a child not having a right to do something and the requirement that he should be put in jail is false. The one thing is not equal to the other.

An example, just for kicks. Children do not have the right to vote. Should a child attempt to do so, he is just shewed away.

Even in the case of drug use, the state properly regards this as a child not having sufficient awareness of the consequences to understand what he is doing, which incidentally is the same attitude that most people take regarding the childlike adults who think they know what they're doing re drugs.

If on the other hand you do NOT think the child should be jailed, but the adult should, then I think you have misstated it. In this case you should state that the child has the right to use drugs, just like an adult. The issue is who if anyone has the right to provide such drugs TO the child. And my opinion is that no-one but a parent/guardian has the right to provide drugs to said child. And even then, if adverse effects are detected, it could be argued in court that the parent/guardian is conducting chemical assault on the child and have their control removed.

What adverse effects could possibly affect a child, but not an adult? Dosage? Adults can overdose too.

In this particular example, the only distinction is age. Neither wisdom or maturity is automatically imparted from being older, yet this is the criteria that most people regard as transformational. Why? because it's convenient. It goes back to the legislature defining laws in the easiest manner possible, not the most accurate.

I've known immature childlike adults, who's vote counts just as much as the most informed person, and very mature and intelligent children, who are much more sensible than most adults. Society uses age, because it's easy, and fits the "Most cases" criteria.

(this is another example of the artificial boundaries that people create of which I am always railing.)

[Diogenes]

Apparently you dismiss my argument that a parent has an obligation to pay for the feeding and upkeep of his child.

If instead, you think a parent DOES have an obligation to pay for the feeding and upkeep of his child, then how do you square that notion with the parent having the right to use crack or kill themselves?

To the degree that the parent is delinquent in a obligation to a child, i.e., harming said child, procecute them for that.

You mean you have to wait until the trigger is pulled and someone is injured? It isn't sufficient that someone should be pointing a gun at them?

What you have is a formula for vengeance. While that may provide some level of satisfaction for the survivors, it does nothing for the victim. I say the crime should be the pointing of the gun.

But it doesn't matter what the CAUSE of that delinquency is, be it crack, marijuana, of the Jerry Springer Show. The crime is the failure to meet the obligation. Prosecute the CRIME! The vice should NEVER be an excuse.

The crime is the failure to meet the obligation? I don't think you've thought this through. A man out of work, or perhaps disabled, would be guilty of this, if the crime is defined in that way.

No one has an issue with someone who is trying to do what is right by their child. It is those who intentionally, or through reckless disregard for the welfare of their child that should be the recipient of the law's wrath!

The cause of the delinquency matters very much, and delinquency as a result of drug usage is particularly bad, because it is an example of neglect with no mitigating circumstances, but is instead for the basest of reasons. Just for fun.

[Diogenes]

I have actually been pondering the notion I proposed regarding alcohol, (a check mark on your drivers license indicating you have not been prohibited from consuming it due to previous abuse.) concerning drugs.

It is obvious that some people cannot handle either Alcohol OR drugs, but it is also obvious that some people have no trouble avoiding alcohol abuse or addiction. Extrapolating, it is quite likely that some people will also have no trouble avoiding drug abuse or addiction, so therefore, perhaps it is possible to allow legal drug usage by some, without the concurrent damage that the current system invokes.

If these assumptions are plausible, the next component would be figuring out how and where to draw the lines, and deciding if the benefits are worth the cost.

Obviously, regulated drug use would have to exclude children or people with mental impairments. Beyond that, figuring out who can handle it and who cannot is more difficult. The down side is it would require more bureaucrats but perhaps not so many as to make the idea completely unworkable. (How many people does it take to maintain a database on chemical/alcohol abusers? They do it now. )

Just thinking out loud.

OMG!! Welcome to the thoughtful side!!!

I am a lot more objective than people give me credit for. For the time being, I don't see any major flaws in the idea, though i'm sure I haven't thought it all the way through.

[WizWom]

Now you are going to have to either assert that the mentally ill person has a right to jump off that roof, or you are going to have to walk back the statement where you claim they have a right to do what they want.

Not only should the person be allowed to kill themselves, they should be encouraged to. I'm a heartless bastard.

Suppose the "Trained Staff" (presumably monitoring the health of the patient) decides that a patient is right on the edge of damaging his health? Suppose when he comes out of it, he demands a higher dosage? According to your philosophy, Who are the staff to tell him no?

The staff is only there to assure the user hurts no one else. If they want to die in a drug induced stupor, that's their business.

Like I have said already - if someone wants to kill themselves - no matter what their mental state or responsibilities - I not only feel they should be allowed to, I would encourage them to. I am a heartless bastard who thinks the world is better off without the drama.

[Diogenes]

IF the drugs had been legal in the first place, the Swiss wouldn't have had the problems they did. But, they weren't legal, just unregulated. That was an honorable, but stupid, experiment.

I agree about the stupid part. A lot of conservative critics predicted that it would be a fiasco. I remember Rush Limbaugh making fun of it when the idea was first proposed, and trumpeting what a failure it was when they finally shut it down. The idea was contrary to what most people regard as common sense.

Hey, again a slight shred of agreement! Of course we have completely different reasons for thinking it stupid, but I'll take what I can get. The reason it was stupid, despite what Rush (oddly appropriate name don't you think (Oxyconton) would have you believe, was that it was based on unregulated illegality, rather than legality; irresonsibility rather than responsibility.

Your example makes my point for me. Rush was not addicted to Oxyconton till he was given it to treat a medical condition. He then became addicted to it, and has now admitted the stuff caught even him.

That's what i'm trying to say. Drugs are deceptively dangerous, and people may think they have control of them, but often times they lose control.

This is a common occurrence when people can't accept that they are wrong. Too much invested to change their mind, too much dissonance to listen further.

It is also a common occurrence when people of sufficient aptitude realize that a conversation is pointlessly going in circles punctuated with snide remarks and ad hominem attacks. It is like Godwin's law without the Nazis. (Although I think they may have been invoked too.) Add to that, the fact that this conversation has been ongoing between myself and MSimon for a very long time, and this just represents the nth iteration of it.

Perhaps. But which is it?

I'm still here discussing this.

You seem to have made a great breakthru above, so maybe you can remain able to think and learn.

My concern is to address the bad results that affect innocent people. If there are no (or few) bad results to innocents, I have no objections. As with alcoholics, some people can take it with no ill results, and some people can't. If the law can sort the harmless people from the destructive ones, the same purpose can be accomplished without banning everyone.

Yet again a non-sequitur.
I make the point that the drug war causes the conditions that create addicts through pushing, and you reply that some people do stupid things on drugs. Well DUHH!!

You ASSERT the point. You have yet to MAKE the point. It is a "fact" not yet in evidence in the court of my opinion. It appears to me that the "war" is an abstract to the user, who is motivated by his own desire to get high, and like water, follows the easiest course to do it. It is not the war making addicts do stupid things, it is the drugs which are interfering with their neurological processes.

I know because when I was young and stupid someone pushed drugs on me. Indeed, every user I have ever talked to about it has given me effectively the same story. NONE went searching to get drugged up. Every one had someone "turn them on", i.e., push drugs on them. My personal experience is 100% pushed, 0% did it on their own.

You seem to be saying you know a bunch of druggies, or ex-druggies. As them for yourself.

I have no argument that pushing is the initial crime. I suggested earlier that the death penalty for pushing might be appropriate. Certainly people lives have been entirely destroyed by being pushed into drugs. A life for a life seems as reasonable as we can get, though a pusher often destroys many lives.

LISTEN. Get it thru your head that I accept that drugs, when used with irresponsible abandon, are bad for the users. But those users are most often CREATED due to the drug war. Not ALWAYS, but by far the greatest percentage.

Again, such an allegation has not been established to the degree that it has any credibility with me. As i've mentioned, i've seen people who could get all the drugs they wanted. They didn't suddenly start behaving sensibly, they went on ever worsening drug binges. They shared their stuff with others, who accompanied them on their binges.

Ah, at last a few details. First, no one said that addicts would somehow start acting sensibly. It is probably the case they weren't to sensible BEFORE they became addicts. But the question remains, when they "shared" their drugs, did they share with existing druggies or did they go out an push on non-users? If it is the second, my personal experience would suggest that they had a slightly longer view and wanted to set up a clientele for when times got worse.

Who knows? It's not like they would sit still for an interview. From my recollection, it was the usual suspects.

MSimon mentioned tobacco earlier, if your theory is correct, that the drug war causes all the problems, why is it that we have so many problems with tobacco, and why is it's use so widespread when there was an absence of an equivalent war? We SEE what happened with tobacco. How can you allege that something completely different will happen with Crack? I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Which problems are you talking about? Are there drive by shootings to corner the cigi-butt market? Are there folks in school yards pushing over-priced chaw on kids? Or are you simply saying that tobacco is bad for people, that it makes them sick? If the former, all I can say is "get real, dude!" If the latter, then maybe that should make you think that what we should do with other such things is make them legal and very restricted to kids, and perhaps even restrictions on advertising on the public airwaves (not sure that would be a good idea, but I'd listen to an argument).

Some people are self destructive. That is NOT a good reason to make the society self destructive too.

Good point. At one time in our nation's history, a huge percentage of people were cigarette smokers. The funny thing was, the more it became common place, the more self destructive people there were. (though they didn't know it at the time. ) One might suggest a causal relation from this.

Yup, but they didn't make them illegal and the incidence of smoking has been going down due to peer pressure for quite a while, no? One might detect a pattern there

No doubt, but it is only the result of people being made aware of the danger, and look how long it took and how many lives were snuffed out early before people figured it out. Also, don't discount the effect of the taxes, regulation, and counter advertising which has been waged against tobacco.

Further more, if drug users engage in criminal activity (please remember that I distinguish between criminal and felonious) prosecute them for that crime. Criminal activity is not acceptable no matter what the source.

You mean the criminal behavior other than using drugs which is regarded as criminal behavior, because society has deemed it a crime. If we are fudging the definition of criminal behavior for drug usage, whose to say where the boundary should be fudged for other crimes? Homosexuality used to be a crime. We fudged that. Adultery used to be a crime. We fudged that. There are those even now who try to reduce the age requirement for consent.

I gave you my definition of crime in a prior post. It is a crime when you involve another in an action involuntarily because "People have the right to voluntary action". Period. Nothing else is a crime. Making it a FELONY does not make it a CRIME (though lawyers would have you believe so as it makes them the arbiters of right and wrong so they can threaten you with legal trouble). Indeed, making it a felony is the source of all these societal ills we've been discussing. Because, "You can't do GOOD, by doing WRONG".

This is a good general statement. My issue is that the broadness of it overlooks the fact that some personal actions have consequences that DO hurt others. It's the "big picture" view. In many ways we are like cells in a body. The notion that one cell can be infected with a virus, and that is only THAT cell's business overlooks the fact that that virus poses a threat to other cells as well.

For some reason, many who champion the drug war don't seem to think that folks who commit crimes while under the influence are culpable. Silly, but there it is.

Not sure where you got that notion. Driving under the influence is a crime, whether it be alcohol or narcotics. I don't know of anyone who leans toward leniency on the basis of drug usage.

Driving under the influence is a felony. Injuring someone while doing it is a crime. See the difference?

Driving under the influence is a crime whether you injure someone or not. This concept relies on the principle that you have recklessly endangered others, and it is only through luck that none of them were injured. Merely putting people at threat, is a crime. Not just actually injuring them.

Yeah, it's like trying to separate Slavery from the civil war.

It wasn't the slavery that was wrong, it was the war. Slavery had nothing to do with the war. Hmmm....

Not even you can be that stupid, so I now know you are willfully miss-stating me.

Not misstating you, providing an example of similar thinking in a different context.

Absurd. Slavery is the violation of another's right to voluntary action in the extreme. Slavery is a CRIME, but was for many years not illegal. It's lack of illegality did NOT make it right. In the complete opposite, drug usage is a violation of NO-ONE except one-self. Drug use is NOT a crime, but for many years it HAS been illegal. That does NOT make it wrong. Night and day. Totally opposite. Sorry, maybe I was wrong. Maybe you CAN be that stupid?

As a question of Philosophy, legal or illegal is irrelevant. As a point of fact, slavery was legal at one time, and slaves weren't considered to be the equal of non slaves, legally or in any other regard.

The notion that all people are equal, regardless of race or creed, is in fact a relatively new attitude in human history, and it is actually a moral question. The people who maintained slavery, always objected to "Morality" being introduced into the legal system, but contrasted with Libertarians, it was just a different version of "Morality" that they were objecting to, one which most libertarians nowadays accept as valid, and so therefore have no objections to THIS "Morality" being imposed on everyone. (except TallDave, who has made it clear that he is consistent in his opposition to morality being imposed)

What I am saying, is by the rules of the day, slaves weren't regarded as full fledged "Persons" under the law, and so they didn't have the same rights as everyone else. The operative word is "Zeitgeist."

Thank you for a semi interesting discussion. Please quit acting like such an idiot, it makes the rest of your views look questionable in other's eyes.

Yeah, that's a strong argument for making me behave. Most of my life has been spent bucking the trend, and refusing to bow to peer pressure.

Good on ya. Do you think the world is flat too?

From a short perspective, such as a libertarian might have, it is indeed flat as far as the eye can see, but being able to envision the big picture, (in this and on other things) it is quite apparent that the world is spheroid.

People's responsibility in society is to respect the rights of others. The drug war is a major violation of those rights. .

I disagree completely. It is an effort to prevent the irresponsible from spreading misery and pain all over their friends, associates, and neighbors because they get an endorphin release when they tamper with their biology.

I know you do. You have made that abundantly clear. But that just goes to show that you have a faulty understanding of what is right. Your mantra, grasshopper is "People have the right to voluntary Action. Therefore it is wrong to involve someone in an action involuntarily... ohmmm". Say that to yourself each night for 15 minutes before you sleep. When you understand it, let me know and I will provide your next mantra!

Master Po was blind too!

It is no more a right than firing a gun up in the air without regard to where the bullets are coming down. You can say "I didn't mean to do that!" all you want, but the behavior engenders bad results by it's nature.

Yup, but if you are out in the middle of the Pacific and you can see that there is noone anywhere around, is firing your gun straight up a CRIMINAL act? It may be stupid, but not criminal. Doing it in a city becomes criminal to the degree it involves others involuntarily (e.g., comes down thru their roof without permission).

I agree, and now our analogies match exactly. Someone who cannot victimize anyone else, by accident or intent, can do whatever they want. So if you agree that addicts can be moved out of society, before they have children to hurt, then I see no objections to them becoming a full time lotus eater.

It, by definition, makes people irresponsible. That irresponsibility is what causes the ill effects on society. Good bye. Have a nice herd-cuddle. Mooo, to you.

Interesting goodbye you have on your planet.

Nope, I was being polite and speaking in a manner consistent with YOUR world. You know, government cattle world. Though maybe you are from government sheep world instead. In which case, sorry for the foreign language. Baa instead!

It's a joke. Don't have a cow, man!

[Betruger]

The last time I play this game of fractal quoting. If you can't debate things concisely and contiguously, count me out.

How do guns infringe on others rights? Give me an example of this so I can understand what you are attempting to say.

Can I shoot you right now and not infringe on your rights? What if I shoot your dog or a relative, in such a way that they're disabled long term and in the short term they look like something out of a horror movie? Is that not cause for anguish, as you repeat over and over WRT drugs?

people simply cannot understand the danger they are in from using them.

I understand it. Am I some kind of genius? What about you, why aren't you using crack daily? Do you have some magic divining power? Is that all that stands between you and a totally chance binge on crack tonight? What's so special about you (or me) that everyone else can't possibly get?

To accept your premise, that people have a right to chose to use drugs, is to presume they understand the consequences of their decision.

Again the same argument but in different words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BepyTSzueno

As if the dangers of drugs were obscure and esoteric. As if it was difficult to find out about them, and understand them; or at least that the stakes and facts are so complex as to warrant caution. As if it's not common sense, given such uncertainty about such major prospects, to err on the side of caution. Yeah, that's really beyond any common man's abilities.

You are oversimplifying what is actually a complex issue

Yeah, the same way anyone with a lick of sense will simplify things in ... I dunno... Engineering circumstances. You don't need to know what a black box' guts are, only that it goes bang 9 times out of 10 if you press the red button. You know this useful info because it's been all over the news for decades, happened to people you either know or were acquainted with, etc.

PKDick thing - same thing. Shit happens. You either learn or fall for it too. Yet another analog to guns.

Now you are beginning to comprehend the nature of the problem.

I've dealt with drug addicts (the whole buy such and such off me so I can get a fix, or stuff disappearing, etc) thank you very much.

But there are others which would be very badly hurt and possibly killed from such usage.
[...]
IF the people who are injured represent some significant threshold quantity that is beyond what the legislatures regard as tolerable, then they err on the side of caution and pass a law prohibiting it.

Think of the children, yeah. MSimon's right, you're after more government.

This is like arguing with mothers who'd sooner protect their kids forever than prepare them by making them self-reliant.

It is not just himself who suffers from his drug use. Recall the Uncle and Mother of the Bum in Denver. [...] These people are also victims of the pot head's usage.

Is that really too complicated for you to see? The simplistic view breaks down when it's scrutinized sufficiently.

Pot head's fault. I don't see any break down whatsoever. The parents' weren't lucid enough to recognize a write-off. It was also a failure of theirs to not instruct the pothead about drugs and their consequences.

[Diogenes]

It's not the same. This is just semantics unless we have a clearly defined premise for this little branch in the overall debate.

How is it not the same? If a person owns their body, why can they not chop off body parts or kill it? I can certainly chop off parts of anything I own.

Can you two explain what position each is taking in this squabble? Seems that one is saying that ruining ones life and suicide and self mutilation are in the same category and the other is saying no its not. What category?

Of meeting the criteria of being able to do whatever they want to themselves.

[Diogenes]

I have a friend who stopped an autistic kid from running out into a major street. The kid was 13 years old, wearing a filthy diaper that was half hanging off his ass, with fecal material running down his leg. He had escaped from his mothers house because her brother was supposed to be watching him, but the brother wanted some weed, so he took off and left the kid in the house by himself.

What I keep seeing is one side speaking about adult vices and the other saying "but the children..."

Can we just agree that child abuse, in all its forms, for whatever cause, is wrong and get on with a valid discussion about adult vices?

Wizwom said that people who are mentally ill have a right to do what they want too. I provided the example of the autistic kid who was prevented from running out into high speed traffic. The fact that it was a kid involved is irrelevant to the point, unless you are going to argue that autistic kids should be protected while autistic adults should not.

Somehow I don't think you are going to make that argument.

You are mixing up more than one subtopic thread.

[Diogenes]

The parent who neglects their children should have the children taken away - not as a punishment for doing drugs, but for the neglect.

And why should the taxpayers pay to support other people's children, instead of kicking aforementioned dopers A$$? The dopers are harming ME! Joe Taxpayer!

So instead you want to send the adult to jail for NO reaon other than he MIGHT cause harm, and you are willing to spend the huge $ to keep them emprisoned; AND to pay the cost of child care to boot, but you don't want to risk to possiblity of having to find a child a new home because is would cost you a few dollars?

Jeez, man, make up you mind already!

My mind is fine, it is your view of the entire picture which is divided.

The precedent of arresting and imprisoning people who haven't injured anyone occurs daily with the arrest of drunk drivers who were merely weaving. They are arrested and imprisoned for increasing the probability that someone is going to get hurt or killed. (i.e. reckless disregard.)

As for fixating on the costs of prison and child care, the same exact argument applies to all crimes. The reason society pays the cost of prison and child care is because it has a beneficial effect out of all proportion to it's cost, namely the deterrence of others from committing the same crimes. The cost might actually represent a 100 times return on the investment.

[Diogenes]

It is not the society's problem to judge WHY the neglect occurred, but to ameliorate the effects on the children, who deserve some chance to grow into useful people. But if the drug user can take care of their child - as in feed, clothe, provide shelter and instruction - then there is no reason to remove the child from the home, even if the parent spends a couple hours a night completely wacked out on heroin.

Ha ha ha ha ha.... I'm sorry, that's the only thing I can think of which fits as a response. How many heroine addicts do you know who act responsibly?

In this society, who would know? For all you know there are many of them all around you. But they are acting responsibly. Why then should they be tossed into prison?

If they don't show up on the radar, then they aren't causing a problem.

[
If they act IRRESPONSIBLE, i.e., if they violate others rights, THEN prosecute them, for that act, not for the drugs.

This is where we quibble. For some people (those who have no self control et al) using drugs is the equivalent of being irresponsible. Likewise, setting a bad example, so as to induce their children to try drugs in the future is likewise irresponsible. There are many examples of drug usage being married to irresponsibility, and that is the crux of the argument. The two concepts can only be separated with some people, but with some percentage of the population they cannot.

Where do we draw the line? 50% ? 10% ? 1 %? What percentage of our population do we allow to die so that the rest can indulge themselves with drugs?

[Diogenes]

How is it not the same? If a person owns their body, why can they not chop off body parts or kill it? I can certainly chop off parts of anything I own.

Can you two explain what position each is taking in this squabble? Seems that one is saying that ruining ones life and suicide and self mutilation are in the same category and the other is saying no its not. What category?

Not going to- Diogenes' argument is already flawed at another point.

Translation: He can't explain something he doesn't understand.

Chasing the rest of the other "squabbles" isn't worthwhile (and also his way of thinking doesn't match mine at all, so that'd be yet another detour to travel before getting down to the actual meat of the debate- and you can see up-thread what kind of tangential quote-stacked reading that makes for -- no thanks). I'm against any prohibition in principle but the real world isn't at that level of platonic perfection (so merely asking whether someone is for/against prohibition in principle misses the point). So compromises must be made and the goal posts moved toward that ideal state of things any (every) time such a move becomes feasible.

All this just succeeds in driving societal oscillations. Judging by the past, any attempt to reach a quiescent point is futile. But I try none the less.

Drugs being "inconvenient" doesn't fly as an excuse for more govt, and everything that implies (e.g. war on drugs).

Inconvenient is a funny word to describe death and destruction. I suppose it fits, but it lacks scale.

Guns are not only more dangerous (e.g. nutball spree killers) but are explicitly made to cause exactly the thing Diogenes argues that drugs should be banned for.

Injuring innocents? You've got that wrong. Guns are made to kill enemies. (well, actually to make profits for gun manufacturers, but their acclaimed purpose is to protect their owners from people wishing to harm them.)

On top of that drugs not only aren't made to cause that thing (drugs aren't wanted for suicide/grief/etc but mind alteration), but aren't weaponized so to speak - the user harms himself, not others.

A common belief in the Black community is that crack is a weapon created by the CIA for the purpose of destroying Black communities and wiping out black men of combat age. Now I know I made the contention that one cannot judge intent by results, but if you believe otherwise, perhaps this notion has merit from your perspective?

Then you have all the downstream points, e.g. legal market would encourage quality drugs instead of dangerous junk formulas.

Collateral damage (grief, etc) on relatives of the drug user gone wild also aren't compelling reasons for prohibition. That's no different from any other scenario where one guy causes grief (and here I'd go on tangent that everyone's emotions, incl grief, are their own responsibility, but that's another story) to his relatives etc, as others have reiterated.

Grief? Good Grief! Why are you using such a euphemism? Damage and destruction would be more accurate terms, but they don't fit the narrative you wish to construct. A dependent child is not just some "relative." It is a person who relies for life on it's parents, and barring them, must be cared for by others. Your minimizing of this issue through the use of the rationalized words such as "Grief" indicates you either don't understand, or you don't want to face the ugly parts of this issue.

And frankly - if you're so stupid as to purposefully (because via a choice that predictably leads to it) ruin your life with these drugs as people already do with those drugs already legal today, or any other behavior of that type (e.g. gambling), you get what you deserve. Good riddance.
If it's a disorder at the biological level, beyond your conscious authority, get help.

Like cigarettes. (and AIDS) All those people who died of lung cancer because they didn't know the poison that they were messing with, got what they deserved. It's their own fault that cigarettes are incredibly addictive and deadly. Everyone knew that for the last 400 years!

Get real. These people have not got a clue what they are in for. I cannot claim sympathy for a base jumper, who died knowing the risks, but most people don't know how deadly this stuff is.

Which brings me to the other point I was making (that "ambiguous" litany of motivations).. And TallDave sounds like he thinks the same:

Bad ideas must die in a free marketplace, not beneath a gov't jackboot.

Like predatory business practices. Oh, wait, those didn't die in the free marketplace, they were gaining strength when the Government took steps to stop them. (Sherman Anti-trust act)

Lassie faire has demonstrated a willingness to succumb to the evils of man.

Have libertarians learned that lesson yet?

[Betruger]

I only have one question - Are you employed in any way by the government? If so, doing what and where?

[MSimon]

Lassie faire has demonstrated a willingness to succumb to the evils of man.

Have libertarians learned that lesson yet?

Yes. The libertarians have learned their lesson. Government is worse and they have guns and frequently use them. (How is that Drug War working? Last I heard it was a government program that produces misery, doesn't do its intended function, and is turning Mexico into a narco state - good job eh?)

PS. I personally don't believe in utopia. No institution run by man can bring it.

The worst systems are usually those where government colludes with business. Or runs the economic system outright.

The business that government is least capable of regulating, electronics and software, is the business producing the fastest advances. Note also that unionization is also minimal in that business.

So yes. As a former communist and now libertarian I have learned my lesson. Less government is better government.

[MSimon]

D,

You really ought to go back and look at your history. What you think of as Conservatism is really a leftover of the Conservative/Progressive alliance of the early 1900s.

The closet thing we have to real American conservatism these days is what you refer to disparagingly as "libertarianism".

Do some research. Compare the positions of conservatism from around 1900 to current libertarianism. There is probably way more congruence than you are comfortable with.

When given a choice between a communist and a progressive conservative in an American election I went with the communist. A little C.S. Lewis explains my attitude:

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. Clive Staples "CS" Lewis

Mr. Lewis was an old style conservative in the American tradition. Even if he wasn't an American.

[TallDave]

The right of arms is for the purpose of the innocent harming the guilty.

Sure, just like the right to have a beer isn't the right to drive drunk. The purpose is for people to enjoy their beer, not endanger others. Other drugs are no different.

If you think drugs harm no one but those who harm themselves, you need to spend more time with addicts. You'll find out who gets harmed

It certainly doesn't directly harm anyone else. But guns are no different in terms of indirect harm -- if you shoot an armed robber, you may be depriving innocent children of their father. Both are the price of freedom.

Once the pusher uses it on his victim, the victim has been injured.

Nonsense. Alcohol companies don't injure me by selling me beer -- even if I'm an alcoholic.

If you think people addicted to drugs are in their right mind, you are simply not comprehending the situation.

If you think the best solution is to take the thing their poor addled brains tell them they REALLY REALLY NEED RIGHT NOW!!! and make it both illegal and expensive, then you haven't thought your policy through. Most addicts can function pretty well if they aren't constantly thrust up against the time horizon of their next fix and how to pay for it. (Mike Gray's Drug Crazy has a great analogy for our drug policy -- imagine the gov't has made food illegal, so now a hot dog costs $200 and you have to go through criminals to get it, and you'll have some idea of what life is like for addicts).

The items you mention are in the same direction as drugs, the difference is in their efficacy. The levels of effect are dramatically different from drugs.

Addiction is in the eye of the addict.

It just appears from your perspective that the logic is contorted.

No, it's objectively contorted. It's always more difficult to explain why the legality of dangerous A is totally different than the legality of dangerous B than it is to say A & B are both dangerous items that should be treated similarly. That's not to say such distinctions are always ipso facto wrong, but one learns to be wary of them in this context --i.e., you always need a damned good reason to infringe on people's liberties, because the consequences of limiting liberties are so harmful to notions of a free society.

I never expect statists to understand this, because they don't think so much as they emote, and they hardly understand the value of liberty at all. Conservatives, on the other hand, should really know better.