Teens are diging themselfs an early grave

[Verto]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


So your view is?

Rampant drug use has nothing to do with a teenager "being disillusioned by their future as a corporate drone". It is mostly done for the sole purpose of "recreation", that is, they enjoy the effects of drug use/drinking.

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, and there is no getting away from the fact that it is, really, the ultimate form of escapism...

[RGBVideo]

And Tuo...what?

What a bunch of crap

I was looking a nice way to say that.

More like, I haven't noticed any of those problems which you blamed for this. I also think that your message could be taken from any ultra-politically correct speech of any of the main parties in western Europe.

[Ben Kenobi]

if you don't drink in this age group, you're most likely a social outcast missing out on many things.

Glad to know I'm a social outcast...

Not every college student drinks, some much prefer to go out and party rather than getting hammered every weekend.

Cheaper too.

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by Verto


Rampant drug use has nothing to do with a teenager "being disillusioned by their future as a corporate drone". It is mostly done for the sole purpose of "recreation", that is, they enjoy the effects of drug use/drinking.

Nah, but he does have a point about kids probably being caught between boredom, parents that need to schedule every minute of their life, and suburbanization.

I'm 33, and far removed enough to see that life in small cities and town is even more boring, more sterile, and more suburbanized than when I grew up in a similar setting. We did our fair share of experimentation, but it seems like the teens nowadays our doing it with some kind of vengeance.

[Verto]

Being bored does not equate to believing you have no forture, save as a corporate drone.

[OzzyKP]

Bunch o' ageist bastards y'all are.

Fight Ageism, Free Youth

[OzzyKP]

You Mormon, Verto?

Some LDS folks knocked on my door tonight.

[Verto]

Yes. And I hope you gave them a running start before grabbing the shotgun.

[OzzyKP]

Naw, they were nice folks. I know how much it sucks going door to door for something you believe in, so I wouldn't give them a hard time.

I've actually been to Salt Lake City, Navoo, and have a Book of Mormon, so they didn't even need to lay it on too thick. We talked about that, I politely declined their invitation to talk to me for 20 minutes, they gave me a pamphlet and I wished them a good night.

See, not everyone hates those crazy Mormons. :P

[Verto]

Awfully nice of you. I appreciate that.

[OzzyKP]

They've got a sweet spot down here in DC. Y'all have a huge temple built right at a turn in the Beltway, so everyone driving on it (pretty much everyone), gets a long clear shot of the huge LDS temple.

One day I'll go check it out.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Uh, no. Heroin, cocaine, pcp, glue, barbituates (at least almost no one does those anymore), speed, alcohol, etc. were prevalent during the 70s. Even crack is just a glorified form of freebase coke, which was around then. All we got that's new and really scary is crystal meth. E's been around forever, but it didn't start to get popular until the mid-80s.

Bull****

The context was the 70's. How old were you then?

H and cocaine didnt become fashionable until the 80's. Freebasing was only for the wealthy.
PCP never heard of it (in those days)
speed ............was around but not much used by teens
glue........... only for the moron kiddies

The drugs of the 70's were LSD and pot (at about 10% of the THC content of modern varieties. Hash oil in the 70's had less THC than modern west coast skunk weed)

EDIT - It came to mind that I think of the pre-disco days as the 70's. DISCO SUCKS

[Dis]

so this is happening in England too?

I thought you were supposed to be smarter than us yanks.

And you have less capitalist companies pushing products down your throats as we do.

[David Floyd]

Sava,

ownership of property isn't a natural concept...

Sure it is. If Grog chisels out a crude wheel, I doubt seriously that he'll just let Ug take it.

Thieven,

Why? All that happened is that they died.

As a result of YOUR action - ie, coercion.

I'm sure you would.

Any other response would be using emotion to determine morality. If we eradicate taxes, and one person starves to death as a partial result (although your cause and effect is off, they really starved to death because of a lack of food), that's a moral trade. No one is being coerced. No one has a right to stay alive at the expense of someone else.

Tuo,

Who pays for the maintenance of prison?

Oh, there are a few ways to do it. You could fund the prison system using the fines of people who commit crimes, to start with. There are numerous ways, but if we're already discussing how to put Libertarianism into practice, then I can only assume that you are admitting that as a theory, Libertarianism is sound. Is this correct?

korn,

Trust me not all families work together, just look at the number of deadbeat dad's in the world,

First of all, let's define "deadbeat dad". I assume that you mean a father who divorces his wife and doesn't pursue custody of their children, and who also decides not to help support those children.

So, what exactly is your question? Should fathers be forced to help support their children? I would tend to say that they should - having children is entering into a voluntary contract, with certain obligation. Now, I'm also very willing to listen to counterarguments - if, for example, the wife tricks her husband into having kids, he shouldn't be forced to support them. But this is also beside the point. The original point had to do with welfare. I said that in the absence of welfare, families would help each other out. Your response was, essentially, "Not all of them." Well no joke. My family certainly would, and what your family does (or whomever's family) really isn't my problem.

What happens when your family dies in an accident?

Hopefully they had the foresight to take out life insurance policies.

Or what happens with child abuse?

The most obvious answer is that child abusers go to prison for assault, and their children either stay with the remaining parent or stay with someone who volunteers to take care of them.

WHo pays for orphans or foster children?

Not me, and people who volunteer to support foster children, respectively.

Here's the problem, people don't enter the world with zero debts to society.

The word "society" gets thrown around a lot, but no one ever really defines it. As near as I can tell, all that "society" is, is a group of individuals. As to entering the world indebted to others, are you telling me that infants owe their parents something later in life? Sorry, I'd disagree - becoming a parent is voluntarily taking on certain obligation. You don't have to do it, and seeing as how the child had no choice in the matter, it is hardly fair to say that they owe the parents for making sure they were fed when they were babies.

Infants cannot provide for themselves at all, not even when it comes to eating, so these children owe a debt to their caretakers.

And what debt might this be? A debt implies a contract, and a contract implies two parties willingly entering into an agreement. Your example fails that test.

However, their caretakers owe a debt to the forces of civilization that protects them from violence and that ensures the operation of some type of economy.

Certainly. Libertarians are not opposed to user fees, in many cases, for things such as a police force. As to "the operation of an economy", people fulfill their "debts" by simply engaging in commerce. When you buy or sell something, you help fuel the economy.

However, I'm sure that you will make a point that families can arm themselves to ensure their own security. It's true they can, and in many cases it will work. The thing is, this forces them to devote far more resources to get equal or less protection than society could provide for them.

Which is exactly why Libertarians provide for a police force and a judicial system.

You will say that Libertarianism isn't anarchy, because it has courts, police etc. Yet who pays for this and how?

Various methods - court costs, user fees, fines and penalties, contributions (if the only source of funding for the police was in contributions, would you contribute something? I certainly would), etc.

What would a Libertian society provide?

Primarily and almost solely, freedom. However, I'm answering the wrong question. The question should be phrased as such: "In a Libertarian system, what does the government provide?" and the answer is "The government provides protection from coercion and guarantees liberty."