TJ... My favorite "free thinker".
And that explains why you support Ron Paul
Jefferson was a liberal then just as Paul is now.
Posted on 02/10/2012 9:16:22 AM PST by Superstu321
Jonah Goldberg makes the case that Libertarians are a essential to the Republican party and that conservatives and libertarians aren't that different.
(Excerpt) Read more at media.aei.org ...
Not the question. Again: would that satisfy you?
Please see my full answer
I did, as you know because I responded to the rest of your answer:
But I support the arrest, and the removal of driving privileges from, EVERY person who drives impaired.
The issue is not impaired driving but your imposition-of-costs argument. Again: I'm talking about innocent people suffering and dying in accidents that wouldn't have happened if the car wasn't on the road. Are you willing to continue imposing those costs on others for your right to drive (unimpaired) for the sake of driving?
Your reply?
I do equate drunkenness with the use of illegal drugs.
As I said in post #258, to which you haven't responded:
A glass or two or three of alcohol depending upon the size and duration does not keep you from rational thinking, or have any but beneficial long term effects.
All other drugs do;
Alcohol was used exclusively in irrationalizing doses when that drug was illegal. It's not the drug, it's the incentive structure.
save for a puff or two of marijuana; which I’ve never heard of or seen someone do;
I've done it myself in the past - so again you FAIL.
” But I support the arrest, and the removal of driving privileges from, EVERY person who drives impaired.
The issue is not impaired driving but your imposition-of-costs argument. Again: I’m talking about innocent people suffering and dying in accidents that wouldn’t have happened if the car wasn’t on the road. Are you willing to continue imposing those costs on others for your right to drive (unimpaired) for the sake of driving? “
Yes. Because if you take just me off the road, the odds are 100% that people will still suffer and die in car accidents.
You’d have to take EVERYONE off the road to insure that no one suffers or dies in car accidents.
Now, you could make a law that no one can “pleasure drive,” that would have to be legally defined, but, is unenforceable. Because everyone who wanted to pleasure drive would only have to say they were headed to the store. Unless you got an infallible lie detector to apply to everyone driving.
Then again, if people aren’t allowed to pleasure drive, what would they do instead? Would the activities they choose to do instead be more lethal than pleasure driving? Quite possible.
-Since pleasure driving is not a statistically bad risk. It is a very low risk activity.
All activities and inactivities have risk. How high risk are we willing to tolerate? Will we allow a blindfolded man to run with a running chainsaw through a crowd? No. High risk. Will we allow a man to saw through a tree on his property? Yes. Low risk.
You might note, insurers don’t ask you, do you pleasure drive? But they do ask, do you use drugs? Ever convicted of a felony?
Do you know why they ask that? I think you do.
The issue is not impaired driving but your imposition-of-costs argument. Again: I’m talking about innocent people suffering and dying in accidents that wouldn’t have happened if the car wasn’t on the road. Are you willing to continue imposing those costs on others for your right to drive (unimpaired) for the sake of driving?
Yes. Because if you take just me off the road, the odds are 100% that people will still suffer and die in car accidents.
You’d have to take EVERYONE off the road to insure that no one suffers or dies in car accidents.
Straw man - nobody said anything about insuring that NO ONE suffers or dies in car accidents. As you acknowledge below, pleasure driving does subject others to some risk.
Are you willing to continue imposing those costs on others for your right to drive (unimpaired) for the sake of driving?
Now, you could make a law that no one can “pleasure drive,” that would have to be legally defined, but, is unenforceable.
Enforcement of drug laws isn't working out very well, either.
Then again, if people aren’t allowed to pleasure drive, what would they do instead? Would the activities they choose to do instead be more lethal than pleasure driving? Quite possible.
One could ask the same question about recreational drug use. If they drink instead, it's quite possible they end up more dangerous.
Since pleasure driving is not a statistically bad risk. It is a very low risk activity.
So you've done a quantitative study of the risks to others of pleasure driving vs. drug use? Or are you going on gut feelings that conveniently match your presuppositions and personal preferences?
All activities and inactivities have risk. How high risk are we willing to tolerate? Will we allow a blindfolded man to run with a running chainsaw through a crowd? No.
He directly endangers others - unlike the drug user.
High risk. Will we allow a man to saw through a tree on his property? Yes. Low risk.
He endangers only himself - unlike the pleasure driver.
You might note, insurers don’t ask you, do you pleasure drive? But they do ask, do you use drugs?
Red herring - they're asking me about risks TO MYSELF. The subject is imposing costs ON OTHERS.
“You might note, insurers don’t ask you, do you pleasure drive? But they do ask, do you use drugs?
Red herring - they’re asking me about risks TO MYSELF. The subject is imposing costs ON OTHERS. “
No, I am referring to auto insurers. They don’t like to insure, or will “rate,” drivers who use drugs or have been arrested for same.
The issue is not impaired driving but your imposition-of-costs argument. Again: I’m talking about innocent people suffering and dying in accidents that wouldn’t have happened if the car wasn’t on the road. Are you willing to continue imposing those costs on others for your right to drive (unimpaired) for the sake of driving?
Yes. Because if you take just me off the road, the odds are 100% that people will still suffer and die in car accidents.
You’d have to take EVERYONE off the road to insure that no one suffers or dies in car accidents.
Straw man - nobody said anything about insuring that NO ONE suffers or dies in car accidents. As you acknowledge below, pleasure driving does subject others to some risk.
Are you willing to continue imposing those costs on others for your right to drive (unimpaired) for the sake of driving?
Now, you could make a law that no one can “pleasure drive,” that would have to be legally defined, but, is unenforceable.
Enforcement of drug laws isn't working out very well, either.
Then again, if people aren’t allowed to pleasure drive, what would they do instead? Would the activities they choose to do instead be more lethal than pleasure driving? Quite possible.
One could ask the same question about recreational drug use. If they drink instead, it's quite possible they end up more dangerous.
Since pleasure driving is not a statistically bad risk. It is a very low risk activity.
So you've done a quantitative study of the risks to others of pleasure driving vs. drug use? Or are you going on gut feelings that conveniently match your presuppositions and personal preferences?
All activities and inactivities have risk. How high risk are we willing to tolerate? Will we allow a blindfolded man to run with a running chainsaw through a crowd? No.
He directly endangers others - unlike the drug user.
High risk. Will we allow a man to saw through a tree on his property? Yes. Low risk.
He endangers only himself - unlike the pleasure driver.
You might note, insurers don’t ask you, do you pleasure drive? But they do ask, do you use drugs?
Red herring - they're asking me about risks TO MYSELF. The subject is imposing costs ON OTHERS.
No, I am referring to auto insurers. They don’t like to insure, or will “rate,” drivers who use drugs or have been arrested for same.
So you reckon it's OK to impose on others any risk that insurers don't bother to ask about?
Insurance is a business. My main point in bringing up the insurance was to illustrate for you that drug abuse and drunkenness is a high risk activity. The proof is in the rating.
Insurance carriers build into their premiums the little risks. That is ok with me, yes. If they don’t successfully do this, they go out of business.
Our man with the chain saw does indeed incur some risk on others. There may be people living in his home, children, etc. Passersby. Neighbors. Delivery people. Guests. All at very low risk, but, a risk is always present in everything.
There is a risk to walking out your door. Then again, there is a risk to staying in bed. So, what to do?
Well, what we do as a nation is decide what constitutes high risk activity. Drunkenness and drug abuse are high risk activities that put not only the users at risk, but all dependents, those nearby, and pretty much the entire society in which we live. Thus we outlaw, fine, discourage it.
Getting out of bed also affects others; but at such a lower point it is not outlawed. In fact its benefits astronomically outweigh any drawbacks. It is thus legal, and in fact encouraged.
There is a risk to everything. Most human activities are left alone. But high risk anti social behavior such as drug abuse is not.
Insurance is a business. My main point in bringing up the insurance was to illustrate for you that drug abuse and drunkenness is a high risk activity. The proof is in the rating.
Insurance carriers build into their premiums the little risks. That is ok with me, yes. If they don’t successfully do this, they go out of business.
Our man with the chain saw does indeed incur some risk on others. There may be people living in his home, children, etc. Passersby. Neighbors. Delivery people. Guests. All at very low risk, but, a risk is always present in everything.
There is a risk to walking out your door. Then again, there is a risk to staying in bed. So, what to do?
Well, what we do as a nation is decide what constitutes high risk activity. Drunkenness and drug abuse are high risk activities that put not only the users at risk, but all dependents, those nearby, and pretty much the entire society in which we live. Thus we outlaw, fine, discourage it.
Getting out of bed also affects others; but at such a lower point it is not outlawed. In fact its benefits astronomically outweigh any drawbacks. It is thus legal, and in fact encouraged.
There is a risk to everything. Most human activities are left alone. But high risk anti social behavior such as drug abuse is not.
So you reckon it's OK to impose on others any risk that insurers don't bother to ask about?
Insurance is a business. My main point in bringing up the insurance was to illustrate for you that drug abuse and drunkenness is a high risk activity. The proof is in the rating.
Insurance carriers build into their premiums the little risks. That is ok with me, yes.
I didn't ask you whether it was OK with you if insurance carriers build the risks of pleasure driving into their premiums. I asked you whether it was OK with you for you to impose those risks on others - a question you've repeatedly found ways to not answer.
Well, what we do as a nation is decide what constitutes high risk activity. Drunkenness and drug abuse are high risk activities that put not only the users at risk, but all dependents, those nearby, and pretty much the entire society in which we live.
We as a nation have decided that (with the unproven but possible exception of minors in one's care) drunkenness is NOT a high risk activity and does NOT put at risk those nearby nor the entire society in which we live - because (with that possible exception) we have NOT made drunkenness illegal.
As for drug "abuse": if by that you mean the equivalent of drunkenness, by all means let's restrict it as much as we do drunkenness - and no more. But if drug "abuse" is your way of referring to drug use in any amount, then I refer you AGAIN to the following:
As I said in post #258, to which you haven't responded:
A glass or two or three of alcohol depending upon the size and duration does not keep you from rational thinking, or have any but beneficial long term effects.
All other drugs do;
Alcohol was used exclusively in irrationalizing doses when that drug was illegal. It's not the drug, it's the incentive structure.
save for a puff or two of marijuana; which I’ve never heard of or seen someone do;
I've done it myself in the past - so again you FAIL.
It’s your opinion that I “fail,” but the plain fact is that you and I don’t agree on the threat of stoned persons.
We’d both, I think, want someone arrested for waving a knife in our face in a threatening manner, even if no damage was done.
But I’d want the participants in a crack den arrested for getting high, and you would not. You think they are exercising a liberty. I say they are indulging a sin, or evil if you prefer, that threatens OVERMUCH a law abiding society.
You say things like pleasure driving threaten society, too. I say the risk there is far more minimal, insurance rates are evidence of that, and that there are some benefits to pleasure driving yet none with drug abuse.
As for your habit of smoking one or two hits and yet not getting high, good for you, however, it is not my opinion that this is the usual practice. I can’t prove it, though, just speaking from life experience (mostly as a teen, around teen and adult pot smokers.) Except at a couple of weddings, in my adult life it is not my experience that people usually drink until drunk.
I suppose that the majority of Americans must agree with me, because social drinking for adults is legal, while drunkenness and using other psychoactive drugs is not. That’s where we’ve landed as a society. You’d like to change that.
So, you want to make marijuana use equivalent to social drinking. I don’t see it that way. That doesn’t mean I “fail.” It just means we don’t agree.
Once marijuana is legalized, of course, we can start the argument that hashish is just like marijuana. After that we can start in on cocaine, and etc., until like the Libertarian standard bearer Ron Paul, we say heroin should be legalized if the states so deem.
I’ll oppose it all the way, I guess you will support it, and we’ll see who wins.
Libertarianism is just another utopian idiocy in a long line of utopian idiocies. If it was put into practice there would be violent anarchy in a couple of years with people begging for jackbooted thugs to quell the mayhem. John Jay was much more intelligent than anyone who thinks libertarianism would even work.
“Let it be remembered that civil liberty consists, not in a right to every man to do just what he pleases, but it consists in an equal right to all citizens to have, enjoy, and do, in peace, security and without molestation, whatever the equal and constitutional laws of the country admit to be consistent with the public good.”
John Jay
Read my comment above with the quote from John Jay.
Read less Jay and more Jefferson. He’s smarter than you and Jay put together...
John Adams was another of our Founding Fathers who understood.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The benefit to pleasure driving is pleasure - ditto for drug use.
As for your habit of smoking one or two hits and yet not getting high,
It's no longer my habit to smoke anything - I was just pointing out something I'd done that you'd "never heard of or seen someone do."
good for you, however, it is not my opinion that this is the usual practice.
As I've said several times, with no response from you, "Alcohol was used exclusively in irrationalizing doses when that drug was illegal. It's not the drug, it's the incentive structure."
Except at a couple of weddings, in my adult life it is not my experience that people usually drink until drunk.
Perhaps not usually, but certainly often.
I suppose that the majority of Americans must agree with me,
Ah, argument by nose-counting - very persuasive.
because social drinking for adults is legal, while drunkenness and using other psychoactive drugs is not.
No, drunkenness in a privately owned place is quite legal (with the unproven but possible exception of while one is caring for minor children).
So, you want to make marijuana use equivalent to social drinking. I don’t see it that way. That doesn’t mean I “fail.” It just means we don’t agree.
I've offered more support for my position than you have for yours.
Once marijuana is legalized, of course, we can start the argument that hashish is just like marijuana.
Straw man - nobody says drug A is "just like" drug B. The point is that no drug yet devised by man has the properties that would justify a complete ban - and the corollary point that alcohol comes closer to being that drug than does marijuana.
After that we can start in on cocaine, and etc.,
Of course we should have those arguments - how else will the majority of Americans make an informed decision?
until like the Libertarian standard bearer Ron Paul, we say heroin should be legalized if the states so deem.
The Constitution gives the federal government no authority to override such a state decision.
if you want to allow for a person to take a puff or two and be held just as liable for a glass or two or three, put me down for that.
"Just as liable" means legal to sell, buy, and possess. Glad to have you on board!
There, now that's correct
“Let it be remembered that civil liberty consists, not in a right to every man to do just what he pleases, but it consists in an equal right to all citizens to have, enjoy, and do, in peace, security and without molestation, whatever the equal and constitutional laws of the country admit to be consistent with the public good.”
John Jay
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas Jefferson
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere." - Letter to Abigail Adams, February 22, 1787, Thomas Jefferson
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition." - Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, February 15, 1791, Thomas Jefferson
TJ... My favorite "free thinker".
"A wise and frugal government... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." - First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801, Thomas Jefferson
You would learn a lot about what is wrong with the Collectivist/Egalitarian trends in contemporary America, by reading Jefferson. You might start by actually reading the Declaration of Independence, rather than letting quacks quote from it, completely out of context, as is the habit of all Leftists.
Moreover, Jefferson described how a social safety net ("Welfare") should be operated, in his only book; offering the best argument against the present corrupting system, you will find.
William Flax
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.