GIThruster wrote: Anyone, with any spec of common sense knows that things like Opium should never be available to the masses. Given this obvious fact of life, the Libertarians need to grapple with the fact that there does indeed need to be restraint made by legal authority concerning human behavior..
It used to be "available to the masses", and the problems associated with that freedom were WAY smaller than the problems associated with trying to supress that freedom.
Either we are free, or we are slaves. You wish slavery upon me. I advise you stay out of my gunsights.
Yes well, I don't think there are any adults that think much of your hyperbole. Stating your position in such obviously and stupidly wrong terms as to say that when you're told you can't have opium, this makes you a slave; in fact makes you out to be a moron, whimpering like some 3 year-old whimpers when told he can't have candy before dinner. It's specifically because such morons exist, and that candy (and opium) exists, that morons need to be treated like three-year olds.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Betruger wrote:This argument misses the problem at the root of the whole issue. This problem is a cultural problem. Not a political one. Hence why a governmentaly minimalistic approach, like libertarianism, "smells" very right. Smells, meaning gut feeling as means of judging/assessing, because just like with guns (American vs European policies and practical realities), no two nations will yield exactly the same practical results -- you can't (seriously) just say that Europe would turn out the same as the USA if the EU adopted American gun laws overnight.
I personally don't expect libertarian drug rules would play out arguably near the better side of 50% good, IE well enough, the way self-professed Libertarians usually argue. The problem and solution though, is accurately prognosticated by Libertarian POV: the root of these problems isn't paired to a GOVT solution. Just like if you wanna have peace, you just have peace (as Buddhist profs'll tell ya) rather than complicate things and make war to find peace, the problem to drugs and the rest of problems usually addressed by Govt, drugs'll be easily legalizable if people simply were informed and wise, IE naturally disciplined.
And at this point you have govt lovers like Diogenes & co point out that that's pie in the sky and, the salient difference between them and mere pragmatists like e.g. Ladajo, that "Govt is the solution" IE people must be MADE to act correctly. Which is a good way to wrap up the argument -- if that were true, if Man was so incapable of wising up, we'd still be in caves etc. Govt ain't "the" way forward from today.
I do not love fire, but I recognize it is necessary to keep the wolves at bay. Get my perspective correct when you refer to it! You are unlikely to find someone who disdains government more than I, but I recognize it has a necessary place and necessary tasks, among them being defense and law enforcement.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
GIThruster wrote:Yes well, I don't think there are any adults that think much of your hyperbole. Stating your position in such obviously and stupidly wrong terms as to say that when you're told you can't have opium, this makes you a slave; in fact makes you out to be a moron, whimpering like some 3 year-old whimpers when told he can't have candy before dinner. It's specifically because such morons exist, and that candy (and opium) exists, that morons need to be treated like three-year olds.
And that is essentially my position.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Diogenes wrote: Stop applying YOUR stupid philosophy to my perspective. I reject your false equivalence that spreading a pox equals "freedom." .
But all evidence demonstrates that YOUR brutality and jack-booted thuggary is what spreads the pox. You are supporting the current equivalent to China's "British importers" but today they are called the Cartel.
Government interdiction of drugs is equal to British Importation of drugs? One would think I am making this sh*t up. (Non sequiturs such as this.)
KitemanSA wrote:
Your process gets people killed in drive-by shootings. Your process gets kids introduced to drugs almost as freeely as water. Your laws create a pusher in every school yard.
Wise up.
Let us say you are correct in your reckless accusations. Then I will argue that "my" process prevents 100 million people from becoming addicts.
I will take the good with the bad, because the good far outweighs the bad.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
KitemanSA wrote:There are no "perfect" systems. Utopia is not an option. Shangrila is more Shagriladida. The best system is that one that does the least harm.
I go with Jefferson on this, "That government is best which governs least."
A century or so ago it was legal for kids to go into any corner chemist/drug store/ whatever they were called at the time and buy morphine. No laws prevented it, but the community sure had something to say about it.
You CANNOT keep kids from trying stuff. All you can do is minimize the attraction and the social damage as best you can. Creating cartels that maximize drug flow and social damage is NOT the way to do it.
And how do you feel about the white slave trade?
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
GIThruster wrote:Yes well, I don't think there are any adults that think much of your hyperbole. Stating your position in such obviously and stupidly wrong terms as to say that when you're told you can't have opium, this makes you a slave; in fact makes you out to be a moron, whimpering like some 3 year-old whimpers when told he can't have candy before dinner. It's specifically because such morons exist, and that candy (and opium) exists, that morons need to be treated like three-year olds.
Diogenes wrote: Stop applying YOUR stupid philosophy to my perspective. I reject your false equivalence that spreading a pox equals "freedom." .
But all evidence demonstrates that YOUR brutality and jack-booted thuggary is what spreads the pox. You are supporting the current equivalent to China's "British importers" but today they are called the Cartel.
Government interdiction of drugs is equal to British Importation of drugs? One would think I am making this sh*t up. (Non sequiturs such as this.)
Your continued support of a process that anyone with even one synapse to spark with another can tell creates only more drug use and more pushing and more cartel power, more corruption, more pain.... is akin to idiot Chinese advisors telling the emporor to stay the course against the British import of opium. The emporors stupid advisors made things worse then,. folk like you make things worse now.
Diogenes wrote:
KitemanSA wrote: Your process gets people killed in drive-by shootings. Your process gets kids introduced to drugs almost as freeely as water. Your laws create a pusher in every school yard.
Wise up.
Let us say you are correct in your reckless accusations. Then I will argue that "my" process prevents 100 million people from becoming addicts.
And your assertion is totally oposite to ALL data available. EVERY location that has loosened the restrictions against drug use has REDUCED the ocal use of drugs. A gives B. but for some reason you seem to think A gives minus a billion B.
RIDICULOUS!
Diogenes wrote: I will take the good with the bad, because the good far outweighs the bad.
Drive by shootings, high addiction rates, etc are "good"? Wow, you are perverse!
GIThruster wrote:Yes well, I don't think there are any adults that think much of your hyperbole. Stating your position in such obviously and stupidly wrong terms as to say that when you're told you can't have opium, this makes you a slave; in fact makes you out to be a moron, whimpering like some 3 year-old whimpers when told he can't have candy before dinner. It's specifically because such morons exist, and that candy (and opium) exists, that morons need to be treated like three-year olds.
What makes you think you have the right to direct my life? Talk about moronic!
I swear I can see Kite stamp his little foot while crying to the other three-year olds "you're not the boss of me!"
Governments direct peoples lives in that they set boundaries as to what is and is not legally acceptable, and that's just the way life is, Kite. If you don't like it, build a shack in the wilderness, buy a boat and sail away, do something but resolve yourself to avoid any mixing with civilization, because you don't belong. We have the drug laws we have by the mutual consent of the majority, and if you can't live with that, either leave or go to prison for breaking the law.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
All those who favor unregulated drug distribution by violent gangs raise your hands.
All those who would like to see distribution at least a little regulated by making these products available through regular distribution channels (liquor stores, drug stores, etc) raise your hands.
After nearly 100 years of effort it is evident that those are the only two choices.
So far unregulated drug distribution by violent gangs seems to be winning. It seems to do especially well among "law and order" folks. Go figure.
Never underestimate the value of government propaganda. It is especially effective among the weak minded and those dependent on their government iron rice bowl.
And don't tell me that you favor no one distributing the stuff. One hundred years of history shows that that ideal is not an option available in the real world.
But it is amusing that so many can be made to believe that "prohibited = unavailable". There is no evidence in the real world for that equation. And yet despite the lack of evidence (because of it?) more than a few people think that way. Engineers even.
And if drug taking is at least 30% due to PTSD? Well convince me that making war on the traumatized is a good idea. Or that a country that does so is "Christian".
MSimon wrote:
After nearly 100 years of effort it is evident that those are the only two choices.
I disagree. I think the solution we have at present is far, far better than what you're proposing, which quite frankly sounds completely out of touch with reality. I think you have absolutely no comprehension of the fantastical destruction deregulation and legalization of drugs would necessarily create, and as I've already stated, this would in no way remove the violent gangs. They will simply move on to the next thing. You cannot end crime by decriminalizing things. That's just totally out of touch.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Diogenes wrote: And how do you feel about the white slave trade?
The same as I feel about the black or yellow or brown slave trade. It is morally wrong. Not because there is trade going on between concenting adults, but because the right of the "thing" being traded is being violated.
But just for comparison purposes, a hard drug (e.g., heroin or opium) is NOT a person and has no "right". So you can't violate the drug's right. And if the two individuals are trading the drug voluntarily, there is nothing wrong with the action.
KitemanSA wrote: What makes you think you have the right to direct my life? Talk about moronic!
I swear I can see Kite stamp his little foot while crying to the other three-year olds "you're not the boss of me!"
And I am proud to be listed among those other "three year olds" like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henery, George Washington, etc. who "stamped their foot" and told Georgie Porgie" "you're not the boss of me". I'm in great company. Thank you, oh minion of the Georgie Porgies of this age.
Diogenes wrote: And how do you feel about the white slave trade?
The same as I feel about the black or yellow or brown slave trade. It is morally wrong. Not because there is trade going on between concenting adults, but because the right of the "thing" being traded is being violated.
But just for comparison purposes, a hard drug (e.g., heroin or opium) is NOT a person and has no "right". So you can't violate the drug's right. And if the two individuals are trading the drug voluntarily, there is nothing wrong with the action.
You misunderstand my point. I am talking about how you think it should be handled by our government. If you feel it should be prohibited, then you are advocating something on the one hand of which you disapprove on the other hand.
Should the white slave trade be prohibited? In other words, does Prohibition "work" in this case?
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
So you can't violate the drug's right. And if the two individuals are trading the drug voluntarily, there is nothing wrong with the action.
Nope you can't violate the drug's rights.
But drug users sure can (and do) violate involuntarily, the rights of others with their behaviors and activities.
And, just who are you to judge how "voluntary" the transaction is. Given that drug use disrupts cognitive function, just how voluntary is it?
You seem to be arguing this issue with a perspective that drugs and drug use does no harm, especially no harm to others. Kite, I am pretty durn sure that you are not a drug user, why not?
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
