Home | Community | Message Board |
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Shop: CBD Concentrates Kratom Capsules for Sale Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Kratom Powder for Sale |
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: 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?
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: 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.
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: You've still not answered questions libertine. Given you've been promoting this idea, I think you should defend it.
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
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. 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? 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: 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.
| |||||||
Libertine Tarzan...King of Registered: 07/14/07 Posts: 161 Loc: New England Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
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.
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? And I am the one being lectured about 'assing around'? Alllllllllrighty then. -------------------- A mind is a terrible thing to taste...hehehe.
| |||||||
Libertine Tarzan...King of Registered: 07/14/07 Posts: 161 Loc: New England Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: 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.
| |||||||
ScavengerType Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
Quote: 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
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
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?
| |||||||
Libertine Tarzan...King of Registered: 07/14/07 Posts: 161 Loc: New England Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: 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.
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: 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.
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
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. 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?
| |||||||
Libertine Tarzan...King of Registered: 07/14/07 Posts: 161 Loc: New England Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: 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.
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: 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: 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: 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...
| |||||||
Libertine Tarzan...King of Registered: 07/14/07 Posts: 161 Loc: New England Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
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.
| |||||||
fivepointer newbie Registered: 08/03/02 Posts: 1,428 Last seen: 7 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
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.
| |||||||
ScavengerType Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
Johnm214:
Quote: Dono Phred brought it up. Quote: 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: 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: Phred said it wasn't, your probibly right. Quote: 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: 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 s for you, I never understood how philosophy was connected with politics and law before this discussion. Quote: 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 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: 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)
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: No I didn't. Quote: 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
| |||||||
ScavengerType Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
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
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
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 in response: Quote:
| |||||||
fivepointer newbie Registered: 08/03/02 Posts: 1,428 Last seen: 7 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: 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.
| |||||||
|
Shop: CBD Concentrates Kratom Capsules for Sale Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Kratom Powder for Sale |
|
Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last 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 ] | ||