Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

[KitemanSA]

The State is a necessary evil.

Government, like most toxic substances, is subject to the J-Curve.

A little is beneficial, a lot is toxic.

[KitemanSA]

In accordance with this theory, I would suspect we have the most murders in those parts of the country that punish it the most?

I think the distinction is that most kids and other people can see the distinction between "can't do this TO" and "can't do this WITH"; unlike many conservative theorists.

You are going to half to clarify your statement. I'm not grasping whatever it is you are trying to say.

My position is that often, people wish to disown responsibility for the consequences of their actions if they are not obvious and immediate. Spreading a disease that kills later, or making a child that others pay for later, being but two examples of this sort of behavior.

WOW!!! What a total disconnect between these two statements.

[KitemanSA]

Well yes. The state is a necessary evil. Which is why I would like to reduce it by a factor of 10X. Because - you know - I want to reduce systematic evil.

Both liberals and conservatives want an increase in the state - for their own pet projects. The real clue to the question is that neither side ever reduces the work of the other side. i.e. while acting seemingly in opposition they are actually in cahoots.

You keep repeating this false mantra

MSimon, he's got you. You do keep saying that. What you SHOULD be saying is that Democrats and Republicans... not liberals and concservatives. The unfortunate thing is, there are VERY few "conservatives" in elective office. Of course, by D's definition, Libertarians are "conservative" and Republicans are not.

[MSimon]

You keep repeating this false mantra just as you kept repeating the absurdity that it was easier for a child to get drugs than a beer.

False? Take it up with these folks:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/200 ... rugs_N.htm

Or these:

http://www.casacolumbia.org/articlefile ... Report.pdf

A police officer (retired) says:

Since 1975 teens in government surveys report that marijuana is readily available and easier to obtain than alcohol.

COPS

http://www.casacolumbia.org/templates/H ... &zoneid=32

BTW something needs to be done about the #1 most dangerous drug in America. Alcohol:

http://www.brad21.org/facts.html

http://www.alcoholcostcalculator.org/ki ... -teens.php

Now if PTSD is the real vector for drug/alcohol use (people in chronic pain chronically take pain relievers) wouldn't you have better results fighting causes (child abuse) than symptoms (drug use?).

There was a reason I was an alcoholic at age 16. And availability of alcohol wasn't it. Severe child abuse was the reason. The alcohol caused many problems. But it did ease the pain. Fortunately it didn't interfere with my studies.

[MSimon]

More interesting, but buried in the news coverage of the report, was the teens' response to a question about the availability of various substances. Specifically, teens were asked which was easier to obtain among cigarettes, beer and marijuana. While the overwhelming majority of teens listed cigarettes as the easiest, marijuana was a clear second. In fact, seven times as many teens (35%) listed the prohibited marijuana as easiest to obtain as listed beer (5%), which of course is legal and regulated.

http://www.casacolumbia.org/

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old ... tudy.shtml

[Diogenes]

Well we are in fact making progress. There are prohibitions people will NATURALLY obey and others they will not.

The latter ought to be taken off the books because they cause disrespect for ALL law. It was one of the reasons we ended alcohol prohibition. The LAW was getting a bad name. Which was leading to a general breakdown of Law and Order.

You can't just do one thing.

You constantly point to the prohibition era as proof that no prohibition will work because it didn't work in that case. You ignore the effects of HOW it was implemented. (Suddenly and Imperiously.) It has long been my observation that a group of people need time to become accustomed to a new change in their life, and that their minds cannot be flipped on and off like a switch.

It is now pretty much universally accepted that Cigarettes are bad for you and fewer and fewer people every year are developing the habit of smoking. The Reduction in users of Tobacco has been accomplished by a slow incremental approach which will eventually eliminate the stuff if it is continued.



Your criticism about creating a general breakdown in respect for the law is misdirected towards the prohibition itself rather than the manner in which it was implemented. I daresay Alcohol may very well have been regulated to death over many decades, and no such disrespect for the law would have occurred.

Yes, there are black markets for cigarettes, but with enough economic and social pressure, these will fade eventually too. What use for a black market for a product no one wants?

In the meantime, I propose that those who support a certain behavior should pay the taxes required to support it, while those who are against it should be left free of any financial responsibility regarding the subsidization of behavior to which they are opposed.

[Diogenes]

The State is a necessary evil.

Government, like most toxic substances, is subject to the J-Curve.

A little is beneficial, a lot is toxic.

Both too much and too little is toxic.

[Diogenes]

I think the distinction is that most kids and other people can see the distinction between "can't do this TO" and "can't do this WITH"; unlike many conservative theorists.

You are going to half to clarify your statement. I'm not grasping whatever it is you are trying to say.

My position is that often, people wish to disown responsibility for the consequences of their actions if they are not obvious and immediate. Spreading a disease that kills later, or making a child that others pay for later, being but two examples of this sort of behavior.

WOW!!! What a total disconnect between these two statements.

I see them as regarding the same issue, which is; What are the proper boundaries for intervention in the affairs of others? The Libertarian position is "an it hurt none, do as thou wilst", which is all fine and dandy if you add up ALL the accounts of the damage, which most of the time Libertarians will not do.

They disregard the consequences of any behavior or any damage if it is not instantly identifiable and does not occurs within a co-incident time frame. For an example of what i'm talking about, what say you about this?


http://www.breitbart.tv/homeless-lady-w ... -children/

Oh, and this one just popped up too.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/se ... 52749.html

[Diogenes]

Well yes. The state is a necessary evil. Which is why I would like to reduce it by a factor of 10X. Because - you know - I want to reduce systematic evil.

Both liberals and conservatives want an increase in the state - for their own pet projects. The real clue to the question is that neither side ever reduces the work of the other side. i.e. while acting seemingly in opposition they are actually in cahoots.

You keep repeating this false mantra

MSimon, he's got you. You do keep saying that. What you SHOULD be saying is that Democrats and Republicans... not liberals and concservatives. The unfortunate thing is, there are VERY few "conservatives" in elective office. Of course, by D's definition, Libertarians are "conservative" and Republicans are not.

According to my definition, Libertarians are the opposite extreme from Liberals. Liberals want Total government, Libertarians want none.

Conservatives are those who believe in the minimal government necessary to responsibly deal with the reasonable needs of society. Not total, and not none.

As my tagline says, the Philosophy of Smith combined with the Philosophy of Burke.

[Diogenes]

You keep repeating this false mantra just as you kept repeating the absurdity that it was easier for a child to get drugs than a beer.

False? Take it up with these folks:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/200 ... rugs_N.htm

If it is printed in USA Today, it's automatically crap in my opinion.

Or these:

http://www.casacolumbia.org/articlefile ... Report.pdf

A police officer (retired) says:

Since 1975 teens in government surveys report that marijuana is readily available and easier to obtain than alcohol.

COPS

http://www.casacolumbia.org/templates/H ... &zoneid=32

BTW something needs to be done about the #1 most dangerous drug in America. Alcohol:

http://www.brad21.org/facts.html

http://www.alcoholcostcalculator.org/ki ... -teens.php

Now if PTSD is the real vector for drug/alcohol use (people in chronic pain chronically take pain relievers) wouldn't you have better results fighting causes (child abuse) than symptoms (drug use?).

There was a reason I was an alcoholic at age 16. And availability of alcohol wasn't it. Severe child abuse was the reason. The alcohol caused many problems. But it did ease the pain. Fortunately it didn't interfere with my studies.

You can cite whatever study you like. It makes no sense to me that a kid can get a piece of crack easier than a beer, unless they just happen to live in a house where the parents don't keep beer. In houses where they do, it is a nothing.

[Diogenes]

More interesting, but buried in the news coverage of the report, was the teens' response to a question about the availability of various substances. Specifically, teens were asked which was easier to obtain among cigarettes, beer and marijuana. While the overwhelming majority of teens listed cigarettes as the easiest, marijuana was a clear second. In fact, seven times as many teens (35%) listed the prohibited marijuana as easiest to obtain as listed beer (5%), which of course is legal and regulated.

http://www.casacolumbia.org/

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old ... tudy.shtml

Your argument is skewed because of the higher probability that teens would prefer a joint over beer. I have little doubt that if it were beer they were looking for, it would be far easier to obtain. In any case, you don't usually say "marijuana" you usually use the term "drugs" which in my mind generally means crack, meth, Xanax, Vicodin, or some such.

[ladajo]

At least, according to underage users, drugs have been getting harder to get.

http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data ... ig09_7.pdf

And there are other studies that agree with this one.

[MSimon]

Cigarettes? Done without prohibition.

You can't make Americans do anything they don't want to do by law. We have a very long tradition of defying the laws. I want to encourage that all I can. Unenforceable laws are unseemly for a free people.

The people are sovereign - not government. I don't care much for what the current anarchists stand for. And yet I admire the spirit of rebellion. Our country was founded on it.

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. [...] It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government. - Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure. - Thomas Jefferson

I'm definitely a Jeffersonian

Disobedience, in the eyes of any one who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion. - Oscar Wilde

No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots. - Barbara Ehrenreich

Men seldom, or rather never for a length of time and deliberately, rebel against anything that does not deserve rebelling against. - Thomas Carlyle

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. - Attributed also to Franklin in Randall's Life of Jefferson, Volume III. P. 585. Motto on Jefferson's seal.

[MSimon]

At least, according to underage users, drugs have been getting harder to get.

http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data ... ig09_7.pdf

And there are other studies that agree with this one.

Maybe that is so. Is it worth this?

http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/ya/downloa ... W&inline=1

[MSimon]

When I was 5 my Dad beat me for 8 hours off and on (he took rest periods when his hand got tired) neither of us remembered what it was about. All we remembered was that I never gave in. In later years he apologized profusely for what he did. I forgave him.

The spirit of rebellion has been alive and well in me for a very long time.