Replies

"While she diagnoses the problem correctly, she still wants to use the situation, which she disagrees with, to control people's lives instead of trying to sever the ties of group responsibility. Two wrongs don't make a right. What's wrong with fixing one of them? It may even lead to people recognizing they shouldn't be responsible for other people's dumb decisions and help end our socialist groupthink.

Because if we do what you say, "fix" one of the problems (ie ending drug laws) then you exponentially increase the effect of the other problem. It is silly to assume that marijuana-rleated illnesses and problems will decrease upon the legalization of such. It's logical to assume that the problems occurring from them will increase substantially, and as it stands today, people like me, you, Ann, and the average taxpayer are stuck with their stupid mistakes. What first needs to be fixed is the part where we don't have to pay for other people's stupid decisions, instead of what you propose which is to allow more people to make more stupid decisions that the taxpayer has to pay for.

What first needs to be fixed is the part where we don't have to pay for other people's stupid decisions, instead of what you propose which is to allow more people to make more stupid decisions that the taxpayer has to pay for.

I agree that your way would be better, but do you really see that happening? Instead, I see more and more governmental control over every aspect of our life, from drugs, to seatbelt laws, to smoking, to fast food, using this same excuse. If I believe in freedom, then I must believe in a person's right to make dumb decisions, even if those decisions affect me. And I mean affect me, not because of the actions themselves, but due to the whole collective resposnibility social structure. I can't fight to change the socialist aspect of government programs while using those same programs to control someone.

I really think we fairly much agree on this, and we are really differing on semantics.