The Problem with Libertarians...

[tinyp3nis]

This line of discussion also brings us to the next point - is it OK to murder an innocent to save the lives of 5 other innocents? I would say of course it isn't OK, unless that one person volunteered to die. Killing an innocent to save other innocents is still murder, and hence wrong, just as killing one person is as wrong as killing lots of people - there aren't "degrees of badness" associated with murder: either you murder people or you don't.

Well done David, this is the most ridicilous thing I have seen in months.

[Al B. Sure!]

What the hell?

Legalizing drugs WILL without a doubt increase drug abuse... there are people who don't do drugs because of the fear of punishment and being punished prevents people from doing drugs (ie- people in jail, etc.).

Now David, you say that you don't care if people do drugs or not as it is their own bodies... didn't I already say that drugs without a doubt harm more than the user... they harm society... I'm not talking about **** like gangs and dealers that would be removed with legalization... I'm talking about the children of addicts and other victims of drug abuse (ie- a crackhead acts nutty and shoots somebody for no reason!)... you don't care if people do drugs? What if drug addicts are hurting others?

Furthermore, even if drugs were legalized and the whole drug dealer structure disappeared... that would not stop drug related crime... Drug addicts do not go robbing because they can't afford the drugs that someone on the corner sells them... they would be unable to afford the drugs the corporation sells them... a crack addict has very little oppurtunity to make money. he will not have a steady, high paying job so he is going to rob people to pay for his addiction, whether his drugs are supplied by a dealer or a business

So legalization solves nothing UNLESS you have a society where drug use is abhored and drug users are ostracized by the community... such was the state of affairs earlier in this country when drugs WERE legal... people didn't do them in large amounts because society abhored it. Today it is different


thanks

[Ned]

Is it the position of Libertarians that all drugs should be freely available to everyone for anything and that we should abolish, for example, the FDA?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
...
What if drug addicts are hurting others?

Why should I, a responsible drug user, be punished for the actions of irresponsible drug users?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
The libertarian assumes that man is good and will naturally make choices that will benefit society as a whole.

Actually, they assume that people are naturally selfish, and that taken together, all our selfish decisions will counter-balance one another's.

I believe that human beings are good or evil, sharing or selfish, depending on their circumstances in which they find themselves. If we create an environment in which it is advantageous to be a selfish ***** (such as we have today), that what you will get. If you create an environment in which it is advanatageous to be cooperative, then you will get cooperation. And there will always be exceptions, altruists in selfish systems and greedy, lazy people in cooperative systems.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
chegitz -

"Could probably"? C'mon!

I'm not going to assume that any specific corporation will be able to do whatever it wants. Only that the possiblity strongly exists.

Only if virtually everyone allows it.

You assume we could stop it.

If they want to create their own state, somewhat like an island out in the Atlantic serving as little more than a haven for big businesses, so what?

What makes you think they'd set it up on some Atlantic island instead of right here at home. If there is nothing here to stop them, why should they go elsewhere to create the conditions they want?

Your argument is that a smaller government limited to securing our rights could not resist big business. The irony of your argument is that big business did not get it's protection and favoritism until after government began getting big and stepping on our rights as power became more centralized.

Powerful landowners and businessmen had power from the very begining and were crushing Americans underfoot from the very begining. And not just us, but also Africans and American Indians. Corporations merely allowed them to accumulate even more wealth and power, and crush us even further underfoot.

When the state was completely a creature of the corporations during the robber baron age, it was if there was no government at all. Corporations hired their own thugs to crush competitors, workers, and communities. The state helped them to do it, but because they were getting so out of control, it created people like me, communists, who would overthrow the whole system, lock, stock, and barrel. The state, prodded by progressives, began to force corporations to curb their worst excesses. Frankly, if the state hadn't intervened and forced big business to recognize unions, pay minimum wages and unemployment, we'd be communist today. In that sense, I don't really mind libertarianism, because after a few generations of libertarian society we'll have communism.

Equating respect for freedom with fascism because you don't like capitalism is absurd.

You didn't get my point. What I'm saying is that you'd only be allowed to go after half your agenda, i.e., curbing state interference with corporations and state aid to the lower classes. Your social role would be to crush the downtrodden. The moment you tried to carry out the anti-corporate part of your agenda, you'd be tossed aside like so much rubiish.

[Ted Striker]

When the state was completely a creature of the corporations during the robber baron age, it was if there was no government at all. Corporations hired their own thugs to crush competitors, workers, and communities. The state helped them to do it, but because they were getting so out of control, it created people like me, communists, who would overthrow the whole system, lock, stock, and barrel. The state, prodded by progressives, began to force corporations to curb their worst excesses.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Actually, they assume that people are naturally selfish, and that taken together, all our selfish decisions will counter-balance one another's.

I can surely see that everyone acting in her own self-interest is the theory behind free market economics, but do not understand how it works in the area of law-enforcement, such as when the question of whether to steal the library book discussed earlier in the thread is under under consideration. It seems to me that selfish people will choose to steal the book and that moral people will leave the book in the library.

[Berzerker]

MRT144 -

link?

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72705&perpage=20&pagenumber=6

so does bezerker really ever make an arguement or does he just ask you to prove things and define things with no real interest in what you come up with...

I've made many arguments in this thread with most being ignored. But no one has provided the links or definitions I've asked for, so your assessment displays an ability to type and an inability to read.

[Berzerker]

Speer -

Legalizing drugs WILL without a doubt increase drug abuse... there are people who don't do drugs because of the fear of punishment and being punished prevents people from doing drugs (ie- people in jail, etc.).

Then why didn't addiction rates skyrocket when all drugs were legal? You have nothing to support your prediction that legalisation increases drug use, we have evidence to the contrary. Drugs were legal in this country up until the late 1800's and early 1900's, but consumption was not higher than now.

Now David, you say that you don't care if people do drugs or not as it is their own bodies... didn't I already say that drugs without a doubt harm more than the user... they harm society...

You haven't explained how my use of pot or cocaine in the privacy of my home "harms society".

I'm not talking about **** like gangs and dealers that would be removed with legalization...

Why not? They are proof you and people who agree with you are "harming society" with your policies.

I'm talking about the children of addicts and other victims of drug abuse (ie- a crackhead acts nutty and shoots somebody for no reason!)... you don't care if people do drugs? What if drug addicts are hurting others?

Then he cares, did you not read his argument that these people who do hurt others should be punished? But you want to punish millions of people based on what these people are doing, and you tell us America is not moral enough when you advocate punishing the innocent because of the guilty? LOL.

Furthermore, even if drugs were legalized and the whole drug dealer structure disappeared... that would not stop drug related crime...

There is a distinction between drug related crime and drug war related crime. All your drug war has done is give us drug war related crime, not reduced or eliminated drug related crime. And you accuse us of not caring when you brush aside all the crime created by the drug war?

Drug addicts do not go robbing because they can't afford the drugs that someone on the corner sells them...

Really? If the heroin you need costs $100 a day, where are you getting the money?

they would be unable to afford the drugs the corporation sells them...

Albert, do you know what legal heroin/cocaine costs? Do some research before making such ridiculous claims.

a crack addict has very little oppurtunity to make money.

Neither do winos, but they can get their money by panhandling, they don't need to steal.

he will not have a steady, high paying job so he is going to rob people to pay for his addiction, whether his drugs are supplied by a dealer or a business

You haven't been paying much attention to the rhetoric of the drug war pushers. One of their goals was to inflate the cost of illegal drugs. If you're robbing people to buy a drug, then the cost of the drug effects how much you steal. Legal heroin costs very little, illegal heroin costs alot more.

So legalization solves nothing UNLESS you have a society where drug use is abhored and drug users are ostracized by the community...

Nothing you've said so far is accurate, so claiming what legalisation does or does not do based on your mis-information is problematic.

such was the state of affairs earlier in this country when drugs WERE legal... people didn't do them in large amounts because society abhored it. Today it is different

Lol, wrong again, cocaine was in Coca-Cola and Bayer sold heroin/morphine and could be bought even in saloons.

[Ted Striker]

Drugs were legal in this country up until the late 1800's and early 1900's, but consumption was not higher than now.

Proof?

cocaine was in Coca-Cola and Bayer sold heroin/morphine and could be bought even in saloons.

Is that a contradiction of the above?

Hey, ask the Chinese what the legalization of Opium did to them in the 19th Century.

[Ramo]

Legalizing drugs WILL without a doubt increase drug abuse... there are people who don't do drugs because of the fear of punishment and being punished prevents people from doing drugs (ie- people in jail, etc.).

Actual evidence, as opposed to speculation, suggests otherwise. See Portugal which has recently de-criminalized the use of drugs, hard and soft, but has yet to see any significant change in drug consumption.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ramo


Actual evidence, as opposed to speculation, suggests otherwise. See Portugal which has recently de-criminalized the use of drugs, hard and soft, but has yet to see any significant change in drug consumption.

How recently?

Does anybody care? AFAIK the major gangs aren't lining up for the opportunity to do business in Portugal. This may have something to do with Portugal being one of the poorest countries in the EU. Or is it THE poorest in the EU?

Imagine though an American corporation conducting drug trade in a decriminalized environment. Perhaps as an experiment Portugal or the Netherlands should ask The American Tobacco Co., or one of its competitors to come into their country and market various drugs as the company sees fit. Let's see if they can't get a near totality of the host country's youth hooked within 5 years. After all, if you're really going to grant the citizens of the country the liberty to consume something you might ad well go all the way and introduce full scale modern distributive technology. If the people have the right to have their drugs then they also have the right to have them at the cheapest price possible and in as great a quantity as the market will bear. Since freedom of speech is implied as well then the corporations will have the right to advertise their products as they see fit. Go ahead, do it.

[Ramo]

It was done in 2000, IIRC. The point is that Speer asserted fear of going to jail prevents people from doing drugs, but Portugal's experience indicates otherwise. It's entirely possible that drug consumption would increase were drugs legalized in the US, but not because people fear punishment.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ramo
It was done in 2000, IIRC. The point is that Speer asserted fear of going to jail prevents people from doing drugs, but Portugal's experience indicates otherwise. It's entirely possible that drug consumption would increase were drugs legalized in the US, but not because people fear punishment.

Nope, it would increase because no one knows how to do business in the 21st century like we Amercans do. Financing, marketing, distribution, you name it, we're the world leader. The world should shudder at the thought of drug trade going completely legal in the US.