Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Ummmmm...this maybe? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8686264 - 07/26/08 10:28 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

ScavengerType said:
This right is a simple extension of competition protection laws to maintain a diverse media and prevent the sorts of thing like from my example. Many countries have legislation to this effect and it's not just some obscure Canadian controversy in fact it's hugely controversial in Australia and The US as well and in all 3 of those places the government has been moving toward more deregulation.

I know you don't like to think of rights as a protection granted by law but essentially that's what they are. For example the right security of personal property is enforced in the same way. It's passed into law any is a right because it need be enforced.





So your simply saying that it is a right because of a law?


So I have a right not to have anyone do drugs cuz they're illegal?


I thought we were talking about the way things should be, not the way things are.  Whole thing seems like circular logic.



So are you talking about how things should be or the way things are?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Ummmmm...this maybe? [Re: johnm214]
    #8686294 - 07/26/08 10:34 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:


   
Quote:

I most Libertarians I have spoke with (and there have been a number of them) do have a problem with that SCOTUS ruling.





There are a lot of people out there who call themselves Libertarians who haven't the foggiest idea what it means. You wouldn't believe some of the crap we've seen on this forum from turnipheads who think that if you oppose the Iraq war and favor smoking pot, you are automatically a Libertarian. Sorry... it doesn't work that way.






I agree.

He's probably talking about people to whom libertarianism means "I can do drugzzz and screw whores".


People, in other words, who have no idea what libertarianism is.


I can't imagine many libertarians disagree with that decision.


How can the government stop me from putting a billboard on my property to anounce my views, just cuz someone down the street doesn't have enough money to do the same.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Ummmmm...this maybe? [Re: johnm214]
    #8686338 - 07/26/08 10:42 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Quote:



Libertine:

And I gave the example of how our rights are diminished when other people's rights are elevated.  I guess you and Phred can't see the causal link between elevating rights for some resulting in the diminution of the rights of others because the are 'no specific examples'.

It isn't like sub prime predatory lenders are being bailed out while the preyed upon suffer financial ruin or the oil industry, while showing record profits, gets $18,000,000,000 in taxpayer subsidies while bridges over the Mississippi River collapse (killing people) because highway funds given to the states were slashed.  Of course it can't be the case because no causal link can be made between the two, right?  I take it we need 'smoking gun proof' that if the state of Minnesota had the money, which went to Big Oil, to maintain their infrastructure that bridge wouldn't have failed.





I don't see how people's rights are elevated in your example.  Everyone has a right to their opinion and to their expressing of it.  Demonstrate how someone contributing money to a candidate infringes upon my rights? 

Would you limit me from spending so much on a billboard to strike down drug laws?  What's the difference in sending the money to a candidate instead?  Should the political party be likwise limited in endorsing their candidate and spending more than x number of dollars?  Or just me? 


I don't get your comparisons in the second portion though.  As a libertarian, I, and I presume most of us, don't support such shenanigans, so I have no idea how you think that harms my position.  Maybe you should read a bit about libertarian philosophy... they don't support corporatism or socialism- same evil, almost.  Or maybe I misunderstand your point, care to explain how these are evidence of libertarian failings?

No bailouts for bad decisions.  Let the week companies die and the strong will prosper- creating wealth instead of sucking it from the taxpayers.







You've still not answered questions libertine. 


Given you've been promoting this idea, I think you should defend it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Libertarians? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8686389 - 07/26/08 10:54 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

ScavengerType said:

Quote:

Take any industry, the absence of burdensome regulations allows greater competition and choice.  The ability of midlevel healtcare providers to practice increases consumer benifit.




Examples/citations? Also are there any unregulated healthcare markets anywhere (this is a loaded question there are not and with good reason)? So how does this relate?

Quote:

The hands off approach to the supplement market, to some extent, by the FDA allows greater consumer benifits.

The ability of any doctor to preform any procedure allows greater consumer benifit (allowing doctors to practice in fields in which they haven't completed a residency).




Your right and I've done roofing and flooring I should be able to be a plumber or electrician without any training.

And BTW I think the FDA doesn't regulate the supplement market because it's not worth it economically to bother.


Quote:

All are examples of more choice leading to better outcomes, as is always the case.




Better outcomes people could die from one of those examples how is it better? Better than not recieving care at all? Cause if you want to compare it to other healthcare models embraced in other countries it's hardly the "better" end of the stick.

Quote:

Lawsuits correct the wrongs, when the legal system is allowed to function on equity and blind justice....

Regulators increase the wrongs by limiting the ability of companies to function and consumers to buy from whom they wish.





Can you give me examples of a companies that weren't harming a common resource or consumer safety that has ever been prevented from doing buisness?

as for lawsuits that should read "Lawsuits correct the wrongs, if the legal system is allowed to function on equity and blind justice...." and you'll note that's a big "if".





What does the fact that medicine is regulated have to do with anything?


If I need a tooth pulled, want a professional adminstering and monitoring the anesthesia at all time, I could not have a choice before... Had to be a doctor or another dentist.  Now I can have a nurse anesthetist.  Same goes for any sedation/anesthesia.  For people who don't have the money to pay for a doctor, it indeed makes a big diference.

It is my choice who I want to give me anesthesia, only before midlevel providers were licensed I couldn't choose.  Now I can.  This increases choice, freedom, and is more economical for me.

Quote:


Your right and I've done roofing and flooring I should be able to be a plumber or electrician without any training.

And BTW I think the FDA doesn't regulate the supplement market because it's not worth it economically to bother.





You think the government should stop you from being a plumber or whatever?  Why? 

More importantly, why should the government stop me from hiring you if I so choose?  What right do you have to insist I hire any particular person to do my work?

The FDA does regulate the supplement market.  It is over a 10B$ industry too, so I don't know what your BTW had to do with anything.

My point was that you can sell supplements comparitivly easy.  And it is a good thing.

I should be able to buy whatever I want and consume whatever I want.  The ability for me to do this increases freedom.

Quote:

Better outcomes people could die from one of those examples how is it better? Better than not recieving care at all? Cause if you want to compare it to other healthcare models embraced in other countries it's hardly the "better" end of the stick.




No, better as compared to the massivly regulated alternative.  Of course people could die, what's your point?

The whole point is that people should have the choice to their own voluntary associations.


You have no right to tell me whom to contract with.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLibertine
Tarzan...King of Mars
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/14/07
Posts: 161
Loc: New England
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: Ummmmm...this maybe? [Re: johnm214]
    #8686397 - 07/26/08 10:56 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

LOL...well I did make it quite clear a couple of times that I didn't call myself a Libertarian or consider myself to be one.  So I don't know who you could be talking about, lol.  :shrug:

Are you gonna question Ron Paul too?  He does oppose the Iraq War. Which is the right position to take because the war was an illegal war of aggression. And yeah, the 1st amendment is about 'drugz' and the 4th amendment is the one about 'screwin' whores', right?  :rolleyes:

And I am the one being lectured about 'assing around'?  Alllllllllrighty then.


--------------------
A mind is a terrible thing to taste...hehehe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLibertine
Tarzan...King of Mars
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/14/07
Posts: 161
Loc: New England
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: Ummmmm...this maybe? [Re: johnm214]
    #8686438 - 07/26/08 11:08 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
You've still not answered questions libertine. 


Given you've been promoting this idea, I think you should defend it.




Very simple premise.  It is elevating one person's rights to a higher level than other's rights are.  Its biggest impact is on giving economic favoritism, by the government which enacts laws/regulations which close markets for the benefit of certain companies/groups.  Now granted this part is an observation/complaint about our current political system but ties into what was discussed earlier (by me and Phred) about how government should be prevented getting involved in the markets.  I think this is completely 'on-topic'.


--------------------
A mind is a terrible thing to taste...hehehe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Ummmmm...this maybe? [Re: johnm214]
    #8686442 - 07/26/08 11:09 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
So I have a right not to have anyone do drugs cuz they're illegal?

I thought we were talking about the way things should be, not the way things are.  Whole thing seems like circular logic.

So are you talking about how things should be or the way things are?




I don't think it's a right for the person who gets busted since a right not to do drugs would be manifested in heavy state sponsored rehabilitation programs. It's more likely a right for those who do not do drugs to live in a society without skum like us doing drugs everywhere. The notion of what is a right and what isn't is entirely subjective because some would say that that is a right, and that they want protected.

I'm not going to defend the legality of everything (drug wise) since there are a great many of substances that frankly even I think nobody should be able to put into their body for fear of permanent damage and that only a licensed medical professional should be able to prescribe.

Think about it for a moment, if I were in a libertarian society I could go to a pharmacy or whatever and buy GHB. This action, though it is possible it only effects me, will likely have a determental impact on someone else's life but in a libertarian society nobody stops it from happening and when the substance is totally uncontrolled there is no finding me based on my purchase of it. There are countless examples of things like this that would happen without regulation, the libertarian answer is "well they can sue" but the law will not fix everything any more than government regulation.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Ummmmm...this maybe? [Re: Libertine]
    #8686449 - 07/26/08 11:10 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

How about you answer my questions about your criticism of the 1st amendment right to donate to political parties/candidates/ et cet.


I don't know what your talking about re: the first and fourth amendments. What is your point?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLibertine
Tarzan...King of Mars
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/14/07
Posts: 161
Loc: New England
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: Ummmmm...this maybe? [Re: johnm214]
    #8686519 - 07/26/08 11:29 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
How about you answer my questions about your criticism of the 1st amendment right to donate to political parties/candidates/ et cet.


I don't know what your talking about re: the first and fourth amendments. What is your point?




That is what I am questioning.  I don't see the act of giving money to a politician/political party as something that should be defined as 'protected speech'.  An action can be defined as at times if a specific message is being made, like holding up a sign to promote or protest something.  What it does is infringe on people's rights, based on the amount of wealth they have (and where does it say in the constitution that anyone should have higher rights than any member of the population as a whole?), when it comes to whose speech will merit a higher amount of consideration.  I see it as having a chilling effect on 1st amendment rights for the vast majority of the population.


--------------------
A mind is a terrible thing to taste...hehehe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Ummmmm...this maybe? [Re: Libertine]
    #8686600 - 07/26/08 11:55 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Libertine said:
Quote:

johnm214 said:
How about you answer my questions about your criticism of the 1st amendment right to donate to political parties/candidates/ et cet.


I don't know what your talking about re: the first and fourth amendments. What is your point?




That is what I am questioning.  I don't see the act of giving money to a politician/political party as something that should be defined as 'protected speech'.  An action can be defined as at times if a specific message is being made, like holding up a sign to promote or protest something.  What it does is infringe on people's rights, based on the amount of wealth they have (and where does it say in the constitution that anyone should have higher rights than any member of the population as a whole?), when it comes to whose speech will merit a higher amount of consideration.  I see it as having a chilling effect on 1st amendment rights for the vast majority of the population.





I'll ask a third time, can I put up a billboard, can you stop me?  Should you be able to?  How about go door to door and petition?  How about talk with my friends about a candidate or position?


Unless you determine that you can stop me, I don't see how you can stop me donating to a politician.  It's the same thing.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Ummmmm...this maybe? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8686625 - 07/27/08 12:04 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

ScavengerType said:
Quote:

johnm214 said:
So I have a right not to have anyone do drugs cuz they're illegal?

I thought we were talking about the way things should be, not the way things are.  Whole thing seems like circular logic.

So are you talking about how things should be or the way things are?




I don't think it's a right for the person who gets busted since a right not to do drugs would be manifested in heavy state sponsored rehabilitation programs. It's more likely a right for those who do not do drugs to live in a society without skum like us doing drugs everywhere. The notion of what is a right and what isn't is entirely subjective because some would say that that is a right, and that they want protected.

I'm not going to defend the legality of everything (drug wise) since there are a great many of substances that frankly even I think nobody should be able to put into their body for fear of permanent damage and that only a licensed medical professional should be able to prescribe.

Think about it for a moment, if I were in a libertarian society I could go to a pharmacy or whatever and buy GHB. This action, though it is possible it only effects me, will likely have a determental impact on someone else's life but in a libertarian society nobody stops it from happening and when the substance is totally uncontrolled there is no finding me based on my purchase of it. There are countless examples of things like this that would happen without regulation, the libertarian answer is "well they can sue" but the law will not fix everything any more than government regulation.





How do you determine what a right is?  What is the philosophical underpinning?  You seem to have an ad hoc idea of what a right is... whatever you like.


I see no reason why someone should have the ability to tell me not to lift weights, watch tv, eat burgers, do heroin, or sell stuff on my own property.  I cannot imagine how you decide you have the right to stop me from doing any of these.

Your position on drugs doesn't explain itself.  You don't like people doing some drugs so you think they should be put in jail?  What exactly are you proposing?  You know best?  Where does your "I know best" authority come from and how do you decide what is a valid excercise of that authority?

Where does it end?  I'm curious if there's anything that cannot be controlled by your logic?  Do I have any rights?

And what are you talking about with GHB and negative impact on "someone's life".  We're talking about negative effects on the person who takes it here, not someone- or do you contend we should criminalize lousy wives, bad friends, and callous relatives too? 

If your saving the world from bad effects of drug use, why not make the bad effects illegal, thus sparing the innocents?

If it is wrong to do drugs cuz I might make my wife feel bad, than why don't you criminalize that, and address the problem itself?  Or were you just sloppy and were refering to the person who took the drug/cheesburger/car/whatever else you decide is bad for people?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLibertine
Tarzan...King of Mars
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/14/07
Posts: 161
Loc: New England
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: Ummmmm...this maybe? [Re: johnm214]
    #8686659 - 07/27/08 12:15 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:

I'll ask a third time, can I put up a billboard, can you stop me?  Should you be able to?  How about go door to door and petition?  How about talk with my friends about a candidate or position?


Unless you determine that you can stop me, I don't see how you can stop me donating to a politician.  It's the same thing.




I have no problems with a billboard or petitions.  In fact petitions are the perfect example of how 'political speech' should work.  Each individual who signs that is having his/her voice heard.  And that petition could be submitted with 10,000 signatures but it could turn out that only one person, who 'spoke' with a 5+ figure cash donation and who often wants the opposite done, gets heard.  You don't see the giving of money hurts the rights of the individual rather and doesn't enhance it?  Are you saying the rights of any one individual need to be protected to the point that they have the right to infringe on the rights of others?


--------------------
A mind is a terrible thing to taste...hehehe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Ummmmm...this maybe? [Re: Libertine]
    #8686718 - 07/27/08 12:32 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Libertine said:
Quote:

johnm214 said:

I'll ask a third time, can I put up a billboard, can you stop me?  Should you be able to?  How about go door to door and petition?  How about talk with my friends about a candidate or position?


Unless you determine that you can stop me, I don't see how you can stop me donating to a politician.  It's the same thing.




I have no problems with a billboard or petitions.  In fact petitions are the perfect example of how 'political speech' should work.  Each individual who signs that is having his/her voice heard.  And that petition could be submitted with 10,000 signatures but it could turn out that only one person, who 'spoke' with a 5+ figure cash donation and who often wants the opposite done, gets heard.  You don't see the giving of money hurts the rights of the individual rather and doesn't enhance it?  Are you saying the rights of any one individual need to be protected to the point that they have the right to infringe on the rights of others?






So to get around your proffered restriction of donations all a politician would need to do would be to set up a list of things he'd like, then you simply buy the billboard for him, hand out the petitions for him, buy the commercial for him?  How is that any different?  Just so long as the money doesn't go to the politician's fund directly- but is spent in exactly the same way it would have been?

And you can't stop me from buying a billboard but you can stop me from doing so through an intermediary?  Is this just with politicians, or can the ACLU not buy a billboard with my membership dues?  Can the car salesman not take my cash and spend it on advertising?

Must we do a background check on people's monies to see where they come from?  To allow personal billboard purchases but deny such funded through an intermediary seems absurd.  Absurd restrictions usually suggest absurd laws.

Quote:

  You don't see the giving of money hurts the rights of the individual rather and doesn't enhance it?




I see giving money as a right.  You own things.  You can give those things to whomever you want, period.  I don't see how it hurts anybodies rights as everyone has this right.

Just cuz someone can buy more billboards than you doesn't mean they have more rights than you.  Everyone has the same rights.  That everyone is not similarly endowed with resources isn't a concern.

Quote:

Are you saying the rights of any one individual need to be protected to the point that they have the right to infringe on the rights of others?




No, this is what should be prohibited.  I've already explained what I think the proper role of government is- to protect people's rights to free association and possession of their things and body.

There is no way someone's rights can infringe upon someone else's because you don't have the right to so infringe.  You have the right to buy advertisements or talk to people.  This doesn't affect others' rights at all.


Do you think you have the right to someone's money just cuz they have more of it, and can therefore have more possessions to hold- which is another right you have under the constitution? 

Can you just take things from someone else cuz you don't have as much as them?  Or simply tell them they can't buy as many things, cuz you wouldn't be able to match their buying?

What is the difference between telling someone not to buy things you can't and telling them not to donate money or buy ads you can't?  Both possession and free speech are constitutional rights and things that are natural rights...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLibertine
Tarzan...King of Mars
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/14/07
Posts: 161
Loc: New England
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: Ummmmm...this maybe? [Re: johnm214]
    #8686734 - 07/27/08 12:45 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Some interesting points johnm.  And I will be exploring this line of thinking further with you because, imo, it is getting to the heart of the issue.  But it is late right now and the eyes are getting a bit heavy so I will pick it up later...


--------------------
A mind is a terrible thing to taste...hehehe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefivepointer
newbie
Registered: 08/03/02
Posts: 1,428
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Ummmmm...this maybe? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8687453 - 07/27/08 07:55 AM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

ScavengerType said:
Quote:

johnm214 said:
So I have a right not to have anyone do drugs cuz they're illegal?

I thought we were talking about the way things should be, not the way things are.  Whole thing seems like circular logic.

So are you talking about how things should be or the way things are?




I don't think it's a right for the person who gets busted since a right not to do drugs would be manifested in heavy state sponsored rehabilitation programs. It's more likely a right for those who do not do drugs to live in a society without skum like us doing drugs everywhere. The notion of what is a right and what isn't is entirely subjective because some would say that that is a right, and that they want protected.

I'm not going to defend the legality of everything (drug wise) since there are a great many of substances that frankly even I think nobody should be able to put into their body for fear of permanent damage and that only a licensed medical professional should be able to prescribe.

Think about it for a moment, if I were in a libertarian society I could go to a pharmacy or whatever and buy GHB. This action, though it is possible it only effects me, will likely have a determental impact on someone else's life but in a libertarian society nobody stops it from happening and when the substance is totally uncontrolled there is no finding me based on my purchase of it. There are countless examples of things like this that would happen without regulation, the libertarian answer is "well they can sue" but the law will not fix everything any more than government regulation.



Your philosophical basis of rights is bankrupt.  You think initiated force to achieve goals is fine for a good enough reason.  Anything goes.  It is collectivist and totalitarian. 

I remember when a person could go into a health food store and buy GHB as a supplement.  The world didn't end when this was the case.  Since you have no concept of rights you can justify your "right" to abolish my right to peacefully own property (GHB) and the sellers right to transfer property by selling GHB to me. 

Things happen, people drink too much, people get effected, this is called life.  Your big brother/mother State run by people like you would be a nightmare.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: johnm214]
    #8694294 - 07/28/08 08:31 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Johnm214:
Quote:

johnm214 said:
What does the fact that medicine is regulated have to do with anything?




Dono Phred brought it up.

Quote:

It is my choice who I want to give me anesthesia, only before midlevel providers were licensed I couldn't choose.  Now I can.  This increases choice, freedom, and is more economical for me.




Perhaps but this is only a result of bad regulation (because yes it probibly kills more than it saves) that has made a lack of regulation more attractive than regulation. Eventually when it becomes more clear how to prevent deaths by changing regulation on anesthesia new regulation will hopefully be proposed. And maybe this is an example of when deregulation should be considered.

Quote:

You think the government should stop you from being a plumber or whatever?  Why? 

More importantly, why should the government stop me from hiring you if I so choose?  What right do you have to insist I hire any particular person to do my work?




There are building regulations that must be abided by for safety reasons and I'm not going to blanket defend all building code regulation but I should not be able to sell my labor as a person who can do those things if I can't and frankly I think you are overestimating my pluming and electrical abilities or defending my right to start a flood/fire with shoddy labor.

Quote:

The FDA does regulate the supplement market.  It is over a 10B$ industry too, so I don't know what your BTW had to do with anything.




Phred said it wasn't, your probibly right.

Quote:

My point was that you can sell supplements comparitivly easy.  And it is a good thing.

I should be able to buy whatever I want and consume whatever I want.  The ability for me to do this increases freedom.




But without regulation do you know what you are consuming? If at the end of the day the FDA is not monitoring quality of food products you could be eating fakes and poisons. Often this is what happens in the market of counterfeit medications.

--------------

Quote:

How do you determine what a right is?  What is the philosophical underpinning?  You seem to have an ad hoc idea of what a right is... whatever you like.




Perhaps but most all of law and government is. Even the concept of doing harm is a philosophical concept. If you increase the cost of food and I am starving you harm me by making it more difficult to survive, but this is not illegal. The philosophical judgment of society is that prices should reflect their cost so it is not harm. Did we have human rights now as opposed to before the UN declaration of human rights? Or do those rights only exist when they protect from infringement on them? It's kinda a philosophical position. Funny though, 5 :mushroom2:s for you, I never understood how philosophy was connected with politics and law before this discussion.

Quote:

Your position on drugs doesn't explain itself.  You don't like people doing some drugs so you think they should be put in jail?




Perhaps it's just my opinion I didn't know that it was supposed to. To clarify I do not endorse how the US maintains it's "war on drugs" I am more in favor of an emphases on rehabilitation as it works and does no further damage to real addict's lives. I have stated already that the US is not the end all and be all of government and I am not defending the US model of regulation in any or all situations other than when I explicitly do. even when I do I do so with ignorance since I am not American and do not study American regulations by default only as example.

That said I think, GHB should be a tightly controlled substance. Because when regulation controls something like that it prevents people from going to jail for improper use and also protects potential victims of their improper use.

Furthermore, I think you are a potently bright individual and I urge you to stop doing heroin and eat healthy.

----------------------

Quote:

I see giving money as a right.  You own things.  You can give those things to whomever you want, period.  I don't see how it hurts anybodies rights as everyone has this right.




I think this is fundamentally a flawed argument because If I were to go back to my date-rape GHB argument am I aloud after the fact to donate to a judge or help him through advertisement and find myself protected in my ability to do so? I don't think this situation is in any way dissimilar to being able to donate to political campaigns.

However as I said earlier the real argument here is what protects this libertarian designed constitution? In the US right now we are seeing illegal torture, and DEA persecution of California's Medical marijuana shops (when the state gov law is supposed to take legal presidence over federal law). I think in a libertarian world the government will make laws, since ending this right would basically freeze the progress of law. In this way I think maintenance of such a state is difficult particularly with this ruling.

-----------
Fivepointer:
Quote:

Your philosophical basis of rights is bankrupt.  You think initiated force to achieve goals is fine for a good enough reason.  Anything goes.  It is collectivist and totalitarian.

I remember when a person could go into a health food store and buy GHB as a supplement.  The world didn't end when this was the case.  Since you have no concept of rights you can justify your "right" to abolish my right to peacefully own property (GHB) and the sellers right to transfer property by selling GHB to me.

Things happen, people drink too much, people get effected, this is called life.  Your big brother/mother State run by people like you would be a nightmare.




I think it's a stretch to call the control of GHB collectivist totalitarian, or that it's a philosophically baseless idea that things that can do harm should be regulated. I live in a country where weapon posetion is moderately regulated and I'd hardly call it an insane totalitarian regulation. Though some may not feel safe without a weapon it's probibly better that them and many others are not carrying them since it could lead to an increase in fatalities and injuries.





BTW I will be busy for a couple of days (parents visiting/MC stuff) so just a heads up that you may feel free to really sit on your ideas and think before writing a reply to anything directly to me.


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Edited by ScavengerType (07/28/08 08:35 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8694771 - 07/28/08 09:42 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Dono Phred brought it up.




No I didn't.

Quote:

Phred said it wasn't, your probibly right.




Again, no I didn't. I know you're upset at getting beaten like a gong in this discussion, but that's no excuse for sloppiness. Not everyone who has shown you wrong in this thread so far has a name starting with "P".




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineScavengerType
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: Phred]
    #8694960 - 07/28/08 10:12 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

actually your right I just figured it was you because you were the only other person arguing that side of the arguement, it was actually johnm214 (I went back and looked it up). So johnm214 why are you questioning the accuracy of your own arguments? Is it regulated or not what does "hands off" mean?


--------------------
"Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?"
"The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything."
- Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now.
Conquer's Club

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Libertarians? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8695073 - 07/28/08 10:35 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

I cited midlevel providers as an example of freedom and greater choice  resulting from reduced regulatory burdens.  It was a response from a challenge to identify greater consumer benifit resulting from lowering regulations.

You said it didn't matter cuz medicine is regulated.

I said it does matter cuz while midlevel's were previously not allowed to practice in many areas after the advent of licensure requirements and robust enforcement, now they are allowed to practice, and with a scope that is constantly expanding.  This is an example of lowering the regulatory burdens and a benefit resulting, namely me being able to afford anesthesia when before I would not have been so able.


As phred said, libertarianism helps everyone.  It probably helps the poor more than anyone else though.  Whereas some rich guy gets a few more bones of his money to keep, I get to afford things I wouldn't previously have been able to- like an operation or a new car.


Quote:

Quote:



I said:
    Take any industry, the absence of burdensome regulations allows greater competition and choice.  The ability of midlevel healtcare providers to practice increases consumer benifit.





Scavenger Type Said
Examples/citations? Also are there any unregulated healthcare markets anywhere (this is a loaded question there are not and with good reason)? So how does this relate?





I Said in response:

Quote:



What does the fact that medicine is regulated have to do with anything?


If I need a tooth pulled, want a professional adminstering and monitoring the anesthesia at all time, I could not have a choice before... Had to be a doctor or another dentist.  Now I can have a nurse anesthetist.  Same goes for any sedation/anesthesia.  For people who don't have the money to pay for a doctor, it indeed makes a big diference.

It is my choice who I want to give me anesthesia, only before midlevel providers were licensed I couldn't choose.  Now I can.  This increases choice, freedom, and is more economical for me.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefivepointer
newbie
Registered: 08/03/02
Posts: 1,428
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
Re: Libertarians? [Re: ScavengerType]
    #8717664 - 08/02/08 07:23 PM (15 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

ScavengerType said:

-----------
Fivepointer:
Quote:

Your philosophical basis of rights is bankrupt.  You think initiated force to achieve goals is fine for a good enough reason.  Anything goes.  It is collectivist and totalitarian.

I remember when a person could go into a health food store and buy GHB as a supplement.  The world didn't end when this was the case.  Since you have no concept of rights you can justify your "right" to abolish my right to peacefully own property (GHB) and the sellers right to transfer property by selling GHB to me.

Things happen, people drink too much, people get effected, this is called life.  Your big brother/mother State run by people like you would be a nightmare.




I think it's a stretch to call the control of GHB collectivist totalitarian, or that it's a philosophically baseless idea that things that can do harm should be regulated. I live in a country where weapon posetion is moderately regulated and I'd hardly call it an insane totalitarian regulation. Though some may not feel safe without a weapon it's probibly better that them and many others are not carrying them since it could lead to an increase in fatalities and injuries.



BTW I will be busy for a couple of days (parents visiting/MC stuff) so just a heads up that you may feel free to really sit on your ideas and think before writing a reply to anything directly to me.




It is not a stretch to call control of GHB totalitarian.  It is proof of an underlying philosophy that does not recognize individual rights or liberty at all.  It is an example that demonstrates your philosophy, which is ultimately totalitarian.

Since you can justify any action for a good enough reason, even if it involves the initiation of force, then logically ANY action can be justified.  Logically there is no boundary to the scope of these actions.  Logically individuals have no inherent rights.  It is cart blanch totalitarianism, force without limit.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 34 Libertarian arguments debunked silversoul7 2,603 7 05/09/03 05:06 AM
by Phred
* A Libertarian's Message Phred 1,249 12 11/03/08 12:50 PM
by buckwheat
* Libertarians & War
( 1 2 all )
silversoul7 3,539 25 10/13/04 01:21 AM
by hound
* Badnarik and Libertarians "Sickos"? JesusChrist 2,412 14 09/10/04 01:20 PM
by Ancalagon
* I cant stand Libertarians....
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
vader34 8,901 160 12/27/12 11:49 AM
by Gilgamesh18
* Obama backs away from McCain's debate challenge
( 1 2 3 4 all )
lonestar2004 6,184 68 08/12/08 10:48 PM
by MrSinister
* Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat...
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
46 and 2 5,783 96 11/19/12 07:48 PM
by 46 and 2
* Libertarian: Ron Paul
( 1 2 all )
Bridgeburner 3,905 32 11/29/07 12:37 AM
by pooppoop

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
14,597 topic views. 1 members, 5 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 15 queries.