The Problem with Libertarians...

[Berzerker]

Ted -

Proof?

Do what you told me when I asked you for a link, look it up yourself, hypocrite.

Is that a contradiction of the above?

Nope, let's see if you can figure out why.

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

Who was complaining? The emporer who enslaved Chinese to do his bidding or the Chinese using opium to relieve some of the stress and pain from laboring for the emporer? Brilliant, cite a slaveowner to support your position...

[Ted Striker]

Who was complaining? The emporer who enslaved Chinese to do his bidding or the Chinese using opium to relieve some of the stress and pain from laboring for the emporer? Brilliant, cite a slaveowner to support your position...

OMG, that is without a doubt the most ignorant and cruel thing you have ever said. The Opium trade was IMPOSED on the Chinese by BRITISH MERCHANTS. The Chinese Emperor was powerless at the time to stop the British.

Who was complaining?

The key player in the prelude to war was a brilliant and highly moral official named Lin Tse-hsü. Deeply concerned about the opium menace, he maneuverd himself into being appointed Imperial Commissioner at Canton. His express purpose was to cut off the opium trade at its source by rooting out corrupt officials and cracking down on British trade in the drug.

He took over in March of 1839 and within two months, absolutely invulnerable to bribery and corruption, he had taken action against Chinese merchants and Western traders and shut down all the traffic in opium. He destroyed all the existing stores of opium and, victorious in his war against opium, he composed a letter to Queen Victoria of England requesting that the British cease all opium trade. His letter included the argument that, since Britain had made opium trade and consumption illegal in England because of its harmful effects, it should not export that harm to other countries. Trade, according to Lin, should only be in beneficial objects.

The Opium Wars were one of, if not THE, most humiliating and darkest time in Chinese history. The Chinese in charge wanted to stop it, but it was again imposed by force by the British companies. Later the crown got manipulated to get involved to back them up also.

By the 1830's, the English had become the major drug-trafficking criminal organization in the world; very few drug cartels of the twentieth century can even touch the England of the early nineteenth century in sheer size of criminality. Growing opium in India, the East India Company shipped tons of opium into Canton which it traded for Chinese manufactured goods and for tea. This trade had produced, quite literally, a country filled with drug addicts, as opium parlors proliferated all throughout China in the early part of the nineteenth century. This trafficing, it should be stressed, was a criminal activity after 1836, but the British traders generously bribed Canton officials in order to keep the opium traffic flowing. The effects on Chinese society were devestating. In fact, there are few periods in Chinese history that approach the early nineteenth century in terms of pure human misery and tragedy. In an effort to stem the tragedy, the imperial government made opium illegal in 1836 and began to aggressively close down the opium dens.

Why do think that it was called the "Opium Wars"? The Chinese even tried to go to war to stop it but at that time they didn't have a modernized enough armed forces to defend themselves from the European merchant armies.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM

You still didn't provide numbers on drug use by the way.

[Shi Huangdi]

"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.)."

Berzerker and Ramo have shown well that isn't the case.

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

Well I am talking about that.

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

Gangs are significant source of crime in this country and there is a good deal of violence between gangs over who can sell drugs where. Moreover, the amount of money youths can make selling drugs on the black market is a problem- why work at McDonalds when you get rich selling drugs? The War on Drugs thus creates a criminal position the drug dealer which youths are lured into, and many of them will go to prison. There goes their life.

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

Corporations would likely be able to provide money for much cheaper. Forcing the market underground raises costs a good deal. You know all the drug dealers getting rich? They make alot more then convience store clerks selling cigarretes. I was watching on TV once how some smugglers were making primative submarines to cross the Caribbean sea to avoid their cargo being intercepted. Smuggling drugs can be expensive, and you're going to have pay people good money to smuggle it and risk going to jail. Those costs of supplying the drugs raise the price. And in the course of the War on Drugs, Governments do manage to intercept a good deal of drugs people try to smuggle around, and those drugs are destroyed. That decreases quantity in the market, which of course by the laws of ecnomics raises the price. In general forcing an entire market underground will raise the price greatly. Corporate priced drugs could be afforded by begging. And just the crime reduction from the buyer's standpoint- from the seller's standpoint crime is reduced through elimination of gangs.

"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. "

Source? Many great writers did some of their best work on opium and they weren't abhorred for it.

"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?"

I wouldn't remove the FDA entirely, but I would reduce their power to ban certain medicines and replace it with the ability to warn. If someone is dying and there is a cure that is awaiting FDA approval, and they want to take a risk on it, I say let them.

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

It wasn't the legalization of Opium that was the problem, it was the banning of opium that was the problem. China's war on drugs was ineffective and stopping drug trade, and eventually led to war with Britain.

"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."

We currently have severe restrictions on the marketing of tobacco, I don't see why we couldn't have them, perhaps even more severe marketing restriction, if drugs were legalized.

[Berzerker]

Strangelove -

How recently?

Does anybody care?

There you have it, don't bother us with facts.

AFAIK the major gangs aren't lining up for the opportunity to do business in Portugal.

Mafia? Basque seperatists? But why does the alleged lack of gangs help your argument? We have them here and we have a load of crime caused by the black market thanks to all you "good for society" proponents.

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?

Actually, the reason Portugal changed their policies is because drug use was going up with prohibition.

Imagine though an American corporation conducting drug trade in a decriminalized environment.

They'd be allowed to sell drugs 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.

Tobacco is illegal in Portugal and the Netherlands?

Let's see if they can't get a near totality of the host country's youth hooked within 5 years.

They'd already be addicted, oops.

After all, if you're really going to grant the citizens of the country the liberty to consume something

We get our liberty from you?

you might ad well go all the way and introduce full scale modern distributive technology.

I didn't know Portugal and the Netherlands were so backward.

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.

Yup, that's how freedom works.

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.

Yup, that's how freedom works.

[Ted Striker]

It wasn't the legalization of Opium that was the problem, it was the banning of opium that was the problem. China's war on drugs was ineffective and stopping drug trade, and eventually led to war with Britain.

Again, this is just outright false. China had succeeded in eradicating Opium, which was brought into the country by British Merchants, completely. Later the Opium markets were forced back open. Note the word force.

Remember, all of the Europeans and the US were basically forcing the Chinese to trade with us by our rules during the 19th Century. It's a pretty sad chapter for the West. Gunboat diplomacy at its worst.

[MRT144]

actually i see you just rebutting arguements but not making your own...

[Berzerker]

Source? Many great writers did some of their best work on opium and they weren't abhorred for it.

Ben Franklin too, he wasn't shunned.

[Shi Huangdi]

"
Again, this is just outright false. China had succeeded in eradicating Opium, which was brought into the country by British Merchants, completely. Later the Opium markets were forced back open. Note the word force."

Before it was forced open, however, they were still smuggling it in. The war started when Chinese forces detroyed a cargo of opium that was being smuggled in. Smuggling was a big business. It was natural though that it'd be western merchants who would be the ones smuggling it in, since they were the ones who domianted the Opium Market. Nowadays the drug market is dominated by criminals. Moreover, Opium was legal in the west and did not produce the same consequence it did in China.

[Ted Striker]

BD,

What exactly was wrong with the Chinese destroying the Opium being smuggled in? That makes no sense, they had made it illegal so of course they have every right to destroy it.

Even so, it's disputable how much was being smuggled in. Also, the type of "smuggling" in this situation was quite different back then. Most of it was being brought to China with regular goods, and in huge quantities, where it was easily identifiable and intercepted.

Secondly, Opium was NOT legal in Britain, where it had been made illegal because the British recognized its harmful effects.

Back in the 19th Century many of the companies WERE the criminals.

[Berzerker]

MRT -

actually i see you just rebutting arguements but not making your own...

Like I said, you've shown an inability to read.

[Shi Huangdi]

"What exactly was wrong with the Chinese destroying the Opium being smuggled in? That makes no sense, they had made it illegal so of course they have every right to destroy it. "

I didn't say there was something wrong with destroying opium(though I do think that), I was saying it's problems came from it's attempt to ban opium. It led to war and the undermining of Chinese soverignity. Not directly of course but that is what happened..

"Even so, it's disputable how much was being smuggled in."

Apparently enough for the Chinese to risk war.

"Secondly, Opium was NOT legal in Britain, where it had been made illegal because the British recognized its harmful effects."

It was legal until 1878.



"Back in the 19th Century many of the companies WERE the criminals."

They did nasty things for sure, but I meant criminal in the legal sense, as in breaking the law.

[MRT144]

yeah thats it...i cant read!!! what a horrible burden i live with.

how exactly do you make points with once sentence quips and jabs at people?

i couldnt find more than 10 points you made that were longer than 2 sentences and were not a rebuttle to someones arguement.

thats your whole debating style though. you try to look superior to others and get your point across simply by breaking down other people's arguements line by line but not providing a counter arguement that you could prove yourself.

but hey, if you want a power trip by calling me illiterate by all means go ahead. Im ignorant and cant read. hope you celebrate this occasion with all your friends and family and make light of what a sad person i am.

take the power trip. be that person

[Berzerker]

MRT - Btw, using an argument to refute an argument is making an argument. You're aren't very bright. But you're being hypocritical, your contribution to this thread is to tell us that I don't make arguments.

[MRT144]

you dont, you just provide one sentence answers that are basicly your unproven opinions. you are also fairly dismissive with your one sentence replys and i dont think you even really care about proving yourself. you only care about one upping another person.

in fact if YOU had read my previous post you would see i said that you didnt provide counter arguements.

and i hope you derive some pleasure by demeaning me.

[David Floyd]

My murder would be bad from my point of view, but not from the impartial point of view which Libertarians think is central to ethics.

Well, we can talk about degrees of right and wrong, or we can talk about right and wrong. We can both agree that murder is wrong, I assume. Since murder is wrong, you are in the wrong if you murder one person or ten people, so I'm not sure I see the relevance of debating whether one is worse than the other?

Who was worse, Hitler or Stalin? Who cares, they were both horrible.

No one, least of all me, is arguing that such a murder would be a good thing, but surely from the impartial view of moral rights five murders is worse.

OK, but when you put yourself into a situation it ceases to be an impartial view. You are never responsible for the actions of others, but rather for your own action. Thus, if someone commits an immoral act such as murder, you aren't morally responsible for that act - the person who committed it is.

If the only way to stop someone from killing five people is to kill one innocent person (and I struggle to see the real world application of even this example, which is more realistic than your original one), you can look at it two ways.

First, your way: Murder is bad, and more murder is worse. Thus, five murders are worse than one murder. If I can stop five murders by committing one myself, then I acted morally and properly.

But that thought process does not take into account the idea of personal accountability. You cannot control what someone else does - only they can. This leads to thought process number two:

Murder is bad, no matter how many people are killed. Therefore, I should not commit murder. Because I should not commit murder, it is not OK for me to murder one person to stop someone else from murdering five people.

But even that does not leave you without options. Assuming you KNOW that five murders are going to take place, you have the option to alert the police, alert the victims, or be there yourself to try to defend the people being murdered. You also have the option to do nothing, although I would think that any decent person would choose to try to stop the murder in a moral way.

The key, though, is that you are not committing an immoral act yourself - immoral acts do not balance themselves out, and there is no such thing as "net morality", ie, the immorality of killing one person is more than offset by the morality of saving five. That just doesn't wash, at least not with me.

But as I pointed out above, even this example is contrived, and has little bearing on reality. Come up with a more realistic example (I could, but why should I - it's your argument), and we'll talk about that.

Are you saying that the person who murders his wife has committed an equivalent wrong to the man who ordered the Holocaust?

I'm saying that both were in the wrong.

You owe a very convincing answer to this question.

Then I hope the above convinced you.

Your example is good enough - perfectly plausible in fact.

It is? Granted, it's a TAD more plausible than yours (given that what few smithies exist in the world today do not stockpile modern weapons), but it still isn't very likely.

Your view is often called "moral fetishism" because you seem to put your own moral purity over and above the consequences of your acting or not acting.

That's correct. I have an obligation to act morally, and killing innocent people is NOT acting morally.

What you need to tell me is just why the lives of the 5 people are somehow worth less than your clear conscience.

I wasn't aware my conscience was killing anyone - I thought it was the guy who pulled the trigger.

No one would throw you in jail for killing someone in this situation- so responsibility is a side issue.

That's blatantly false. If, in our outlandishly contrived scenario, I walked down the street, randomly shot someone, and claimed (rightly or wrongly) that by doing so I saved five people, I would be laughed out of court and thrown in prison. And rightly so.

I can't understand how you seem to think 1 death is the moral equivalent of 5.

Again, you are oversimplifying the situation. I am not responsible for the deaths of five, but I am responsible if I kill one person.

There's nothing bull**** about it - if you think murder is a bad thing, it must be a bad thing because people's rights are violated

With you so far.

and if you think that, you must think that it would be a better situation overall if fewer rights were violated even if this makes you the violator

That's where it breaks down. The situation is not better if I violate someone's rights because I have an obligation to act morally, and the deaths of five are not my responsibility.

otherwise what's the point of saying it's wrong in the first place.

I would think that's obvious, but if you need to ask why murder is wrong, this discussion is pointless. Although in essence that IS what you are asking - your basic question seems to be "Is it ever justified to murder someone?" I would say that it is not, because murder is by definition an unjustified act.

We can compare societies by the degree to which they have realised this for their members.

OK, but if we are comparing societies by degree, then by definition we are comparing them by degree of the state of unfreedom (doh, is that a word ). The one thing all of these societies have in common is that they are unfree in some way. Saying one society is more or less free than another isn't very useful (except in the context of finding ways to create a FREE society), because ultimately none of them are free.

If I am a Libertarian it makes no sense for me to say that I don't care if more or less people are free in my society.

That statement makes no sense. I think what you mean to say is that "...I don't care if people are more or less free....". In unfree societies, it is, IN GENERAL, true that no one is free, not that some people are perfectly free and some people aren't.

I don't see anything wrong with your example.

Look harder.

I say it is the most realistic situation that the gun owner would hand out guns

There you have it.

yet it is conceivable that he wouldn't

Well, I suppose he could be a spy put in place to facilitate the invasion, or whatever we're calling it, but how likely does that seem, and how likely is it that that one person has a monopoly on weapons? Pretty much nil, wouldn't you say? Again, let's deal with reality. You brought up an unrealistic scenario by talking about smithy's and weapons monopolies. If the only support for your position comes from such examples, then quite frankly I'm not going to waste my time. Prove to me that you can construct a realistic and reasonably likely scenario, and then we'll talk. Otherwise, it's pointless - one can spend a lifetime dreaming up "what-ifs", but that's totally irrelevant.

********************

And, to change the subject a bit, may I ask what your experience is in either Libertarianism or political philosophy in general?