Why are most politicians in Western Democracies lawyers?

[Jon Miller]

Wrong, the main reason why people are in favor of limitations on individual liberty is because of losses of happiness of others (not the person losing personal liberty).

Think about nudity. It isn't because you will be unhappier if you are naked, it is because others will be. And so on.

JM

[C0ckney]

You have just admitted that you need more data to achieve a conclusion. Anything you say now you admit to being no more than idle speculation. Don't try to falsify or verify anything once you've already admitted you don't know enough.

please follow your brother's advice and stop being an idiot. the evidence we have tells us that where drugs are illegal, there are problem users of drugs. i think it is fairly obvious that if drugs were legalised, there would still be problem users. the issue is how we (as a society) deal with that fact.

the evidence from the one western country which has decriminalised drugs, suggests that such a move does NOT increase the amount of problem users, and in fact may reduce the numbers because the focus moves away from punishment and towards treatment. the argument that i would make in addition to this, and which has been made by myself and others previously here goes something like. if you legalise drugs, you can use some of the revenues from the taxation of drug sales or the savings from NOT fighting a hopeless and unwinnable war on drugs, for education and treatment of addicts. i.e. treating it as a public health problem rather than a crime problem. i believe that this would result in better outcomes for casual users, addicts and society as a whole.

if you can provide a convincing argument against this, then i'm all ears. however, most arguments that people on the status quo side deploy tend to boil down to 'drugs are bad, mmmkay'.

No, it's reductio ad absurdam. The generalized statement you made was "making things illegal doesn't reduce the amount people do it" which is blatantly false.

i didn't make such a statement. please learn to read. it will improve your debating enormously.

[Hauldren Collider]

Do you really want to defend the principle that in the absence of solid evidence, the correct solution is for the government to ban stuff?

That's not what I said at all.

[Al B. Sure!]

Wrong, the main reason why people are in favor of limitations on individual liberty is because of losses of happiness of others (not the person losing personal liberty).

Think about nudity. It isn't because you will be unhappier if you are naked, it is because others will be. And so on.

JM

No. I am in favor of restricting personal liberties (the liberty to smoke crack, for example) even in a vacuum. It's voluntary suicide, Jon Miller.

I don't feel like having a discussion about paternalism, though, because it will get nowhere. There is a fundamental divergence of values here. Like I said, we mightaswell be debating the divinity of Christ. They would call me arrogant because I dare consider that I (or whatever else; an expert) knows more about what is good for people than the people themselves know and I would call them evil for turning a blind eye to voluntary suicide and letting people make stupid decisions. Whatever. Fundamental difference in values and it's irreconcilable.

[Jon Miller]

You can't stop someone from committing suicide if they really want to.

Or being miserable.

JM

[Al B. Sure!]

You can't stop someone from committing suicide if they really want to.

Or being miserable.

JM

So? Who cares if it works or not? You still have to try.

[C0ckney]

[giblets]

So? Who cares if it works or not? You still have to try.

If it's a means to an end, then whether it works is important. It's not an end. Why would you ban drugs for the sake of banning drugs? Idiot.

[Hauldren Collider]

Unintended consequences, Alby.

[Al B. Sure!]

Ban drugs because drugs **** people up.

[giblets]

Ban drugs because drugs **** people up.

Hey idiot, if the legislation doesn't work then people will continue to get ****ed up. "Who cares if it works or not"? Any sane person, that's who.

[C0ckney]

albert. i love how you take a retarded position, and then when asked to defend your retarded position, you say it's pointless to talk about it because it's 'irreconcilable' and a 'fundamental divergence of values' and then come back restate your retarded position.

[C0ckney]

and gribbler, you put it very well

[DaShi]

albert. i love how you take a retarded position, and then when asked to defend your retarded position, you say it's pointless to talk about it because it's 'irreconcilable' and a 'fundamental divergence of values' and then come back restate your retarded position.

He should be in politics.

[Seeker]

KH: Are you in favour of legal tender laws, or market set units of account? How about interest rates? Totally free or in a band or set?

I seem to recall from ancient threads that you were in favour of a single government enforced and controlled unit of account, but I could be wrong...?