Posted on 04/07/2010 5:26:04 AM PDT by listenhillary
A mark in search of a book, and instead finding a thread.
We all know that responsible gun ownership is a 2nd Amendment right.
But I can’t quite recall where in the Constitution it spells out our rights to safe and responsible coke snorting or meth usage.
But I’m sure you’ll soon educate me on that, huh?
"My right to go as fast on the highway as I want to ends exactly at the point where the speed at which I propel my vehicle on said highway interferes with your right to travel the same highway with an adequate assurance of safety."
'Tis hardly a conundrum.
Er, yeah. Abortion is very close to being restricted again. /s
You want to punish someone for something that has yet to happen.
________________________________________
Well, yeah.
And so do you. Unless you think we ought to take laws regarding attempted murder off the books. And ignore all the Jihadist plans to blow up public buildings.
I’m reading that you think what you do in the privacy of your own home is your business and does not affect anyone else.
You, sir, are sad.
I am not advocating that we sell ANYTHING to minors - if we can make it illegal to sell alcohol to minors and legalized drugs to minors, then why can we not do the same with illegal drugs (once they are legalized)?
Again, your argument is that drugs MIGHT cause someone to hurt someone else - right?
Well, guns are used in this fashion every single day - so are you advocating the prohibition of gun ownership because some owners can and have hurt others?
From the website of he former Libertarian candidate for Vice President Wayne Allyn Root:
*Illegal Immigration- I support securing our borders. We must first secure our borders to control the entry into our country of foreigners who pose a threat to the security, health, property or economic well-being of Americans. We must secure our borders before we can deal with the issue of how to deal with illegal immigrants already in our country.
*I support making it easier for LEGAL immigrants with education & high tech skills to work legally in the USA.
*I oppose public funding and entitlements for illegal aliens.
*But I support providing a “Path to Citizenship” for 12 to 15 million illegal immigrants already here. Make it strict, difficult, and expensive- award citizenship only to those with no criminal record; who have proof of paid taxes; who learn mastery of the English language and American history; and who agree to pay a steep fine.
This guy might be the front runner for the Libertarian Party in 2012. So, this is the kind of Libertarian Party I would support.
“Libertarians are anti-moral in their effort to avoid the imposition of morals on the society as a whole. “( SaraJohnson )
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Our nation was ( once upon a time) a libertarian nation. There was open immigration, no free schooling, no government welfare of any kind, no drug laws, few police, and open borders. How did we survive this? Answer: We had a functioning society because the people, themselves, were basically a moral people.
Also...I was very active in our state's Libertarian Party for about 10 years. Many, many, many of our members were strong, believing, and practicing Christians. A few had even been missionaries. Those who were not strongly religious were indeed highly moral in their personal behavior, and worked diligently to teach moral priniciples to their children. Therefore...I reject the notion that libertarians are “anti-moral”.
Fundamentally,...If we want a moral society the best means to achieve that is through private means: private schools, persuasion, missionary outreach, and ..yes...sometimes shunning.
As for the Libertarians with whom I associated nearly all believed that life began at conception. Since one of the fundamental functions of government is the protection of life, pro-life Libertarians support laws protecting those not yet born.
My fear is that we are now at the tipping point. We now have such a morally depraved society that it is past redemption. Unless there is a massive Judeo Christian revival we are doomed to be slaves to a dictator.
B: AFTER I hurt someone, or damage their property, that is when Government should step in.
An excellent synopsis of the argument. Although something is implied that we need to discuss. If we ignore that implication (which I'll get to in a minute), it is clear that "B" is the proper answer, and "A" is a totalitarian nightmare. Why should the goverment EVER stop me from doing something if it doesn't hurt anybody else? What authority does the government have to punish me for something I didn't do?
Now, I will add the unstated implication:
A: If Government knows I will hurt someone, or damage their property, they can punish me for what I will do.Can you be punished for something you haven't done yet? And how certain does the government have to be that you will do it, before they can punish you for it?B: Even if Government knows I will hurt someone, or damage their property, they can't punish me until I actually do it.
How many people who smoke marijuana will, as a direct result of doing so, hurt someone else, or damage their property? 1%, 10%, 50%, 99%? At what percentage does the government earn the right to punish 100% of the smokers, in order to stop the "X%" that will commit real crimes because of smoking?
If I can stop 1 drunk driving death by putting 100 18-year-olds in jail for drinking, is that a good trade-off?
Now, I happen to believe that if government has a rational certainty that harm is emminent, government has the right to take action against an individual. If you pull a gun on someone, government has a right to arrest you before you pull the trigger, even though technically you haven't caused any real harm yet.
I assume some would argue that until the trigger is pulled, there is no harm, and government shouldn't act. Heck, even my statement is qualified, as if you are told to put the gun down, and you do, and it turns out you had a reasonable explanation for pulling the gun, I don't think you should go to jail.
But our notion of police force action is based on the idea that police step in when it is clear there is a crime, and use only as much force as is necessary to eliminate clear threats. And yet we also pass laws that make things illegal that harm nobody (except possibly ourselve), on the off chance that by making those acts illegal, we can reduce by some small percentage some other criminal activity.
And in fact, while we can argue that drug laws exist solely because we are trying to protect others from harm by people on drugs, the fact is that a LOT of the support for drug laws comes from people who think drugs are immoral, and are in fact wanting to keep others from taking drugs.
TO use a different example. I can kill people with my car quite easily. And people are killed by cars every day. But because we see the benefit of allowing people to drive cars, we don't overly regulate it, although we have a lot of stupid car rules again just to slightly make it safer. For example, many states have age rules under which you can't have passengers in your car, or you can't drive after dark, or after 11pm. This even though a vast majority of 16-year-olds manage to drive at all hours and with all sorts of people in their car without EVER having an accident.
But we punish 100% of the 16-year-olds, because 5% of them will behave immaturely. And yes, my argument is I'd rather have some people killed or injured as a result of those 5%, and then PUNISH those 5%, than to restrict the freedom of the other 95%.
We are too accepting of restrictions on our freedoms, and thsoe restrictions are eliminating the very IDEA of responsibility. Nobody behaves responsibly, because the law is written as if nobody has any responsibility to behave responsibly. If we regulate everything, nobody has to make any choices of consequence. I can't buy food that is bad for me, because government bans it. I can't engage in a risky activity, because government forbids it. I'm not allowed to take drugs, because I might hurt myself. I have to buy health insurance, because I'm too stupid to know better, and if I don't buy insurance I might get sick and die because I can't afford treatment.
Mandated health insurance is simply an extension of the SAME thinking that bans drug use.
“What I fear now is that we are no longer a moral people who possess the capacity for self government.” (Responsibility2nd Always A Marine)
But for the record, I agree with this statement.
I am sad? You sir are comparing a PLANNED attempt to kill someone with a recreational drug user? Really? You think I am sad and you don’t understand the difference between stopping a crime before it is actually committed (because it was planned) and the thought police who wants to save the world from what “might possibly, if things go in a certain pattern could happen?”
What I do in my own home does NOT affect anyone else, if I do it entirely in my own home. Once I leave my house, under the influence of ANYTHING (anger, illegal drugs, alcohol, legal drugs) at that point, you have a right to legislate what I do - beyond that it is truly absolutely NONE of your business!
I realize you are drawing a distinction between civil rights issues and moral issues.
You may not realize that I do not accept this distinction. Your assertion that there is and should be such a distinction does not constitute proof or even evidence. It is an opinion, not a fact.
I believe your distinction is false because we assign civil rights to other people, to use your terminology, because we believe it is the right (moral) thing to do. IOW, civil rights are a subset of morality and grow out of a given moral code, not something separate.
This can be seen by the simple fact that “civil rights” are not a universal human concept. In their present form they grew directly out of Judeo-Christian morality and were essentially invented in the 17th and 18th centuries. The root principle is that we are all equally children of God and therefore are in some ultimate sense equal and have these unalienable rights.
No other civilization came even close to the idea of universal human rights. Every human civilization has had a code of morality, but only Western Civ developed the idea of civil rights.
Now I would agree you could make a perfectly good case that some aspects of civil morality, such as essential civil rights for all, are more important than others, and that government enforcement should be limited to those aspects of morality, with “less important” aspects left up to the moral choice of individuals.
I might even agree with you, depending on where you propose to draw the line. But I do not agree that morality and civil rights are unrelated.
I also do not agree that the Founders would have drawn this distinction.
'Tis hardly a conundrum.
So there should be no posted speed limits?
You have stated a philosphy. You have failed to translate it into a law. How do you codify the philosophy in law without stepping beyond the bounds of that philosphy? This is a relatively simple situation. If it can't be readily handled within the scope of libertarianism, then how do the increasingly complex issues of large societies get resolved?
I understand and agree with libertarianism as a philosophy. I have failed to find a way to translate it into a politcal or legal system.
No. My argument is that it is in the best interest of society to minimize FRAUD because in all instances if fraud, harm is created. At a minimum economic fraud. In the case of drugs, potential mental and physical harm.
How many people are you willing to imprison on the altar of security?
Allowing a pusher to sell drugs that hurt people does not violate the libertarian "doing harm to others", because the harm is by choice. (otherwise we'd ban boxing, since clearly in boxing one person is doing harm to the other). THe drug is sold by contract, and government can enforce the contract by punishing dealers who sell drugs tainted by OTHER poisons not identified in the contract.
If a company wants to fire a person for using drugs, they should be allowed to, in the same way they should be allowed to fire a person for having sex outside of marriage, for drinking, for smoking, or any other reason that a company decides hurts the company. Maybe a company would fire people for buying sports cars, because people who drive such cars have a higher risk of injury, or it suggests an attitude.
But the fact is that people lose their jobs for using drugs because drugs are illegal. People are fired for showing up drunk at work, but not if they are caught drinking after hours -- because drinking is legal. There is no indication that a friday-night marijuana party effects a company any more than a friday-night binge drinking.
And in many cases it is the government that dictates that drug users be fired, which is the case I was discussing.
I have never used an illegal drug in my entire life. But I would imagine that, if marijuana was legal, I would probably try it once, just to see what it was like. Why should I walk the earth for these 80 years, and never once experience that? I don't drink, but I did get drunk twice at college, both times to see what it was like. It was legal then for me to drink beer and wine before I was 21.
Your experience bears repeating. I helped with the local Repub party and found experience rewarding. The local parties can ALWAYS use more of individual’s time, talent and treasure.
This is where morality comes in.
There is no moral value in legalizing drugs. Nor is there any economic value. We could not build prisons and hospitals fast enought if we were to legalize drugs. Socially? Yes drugs do devalue the social fibers of any soceity. And on and on we go.
But to attempt to transfer the valid arguments against drugs to other issues like drinking or driving is pretty lame.
I do like your arguments about percentages, though... How many people who smoke marijuana will, as a direct result of doing so, hurt someone else, or damage their property? 1%, 10%, 50%, 99%? At what percentage does the government earn the right to punish 100% of the smokers, in order to stop the “X%” that will commit real crimes because of smoking?
I could not agree more! Where do we draw the line? The problem(s) we are having in America is that we are trying to regulate 95% of the people so that 5% don’t get hurt! But, more than 15% get injured in other ways, so did we really solve the problem?
Our grand socialist leader of today (along with many other useful idiots) think we should write more laws to regulate 96% of the people so only 4% don’t get hurt - completely ignoring the fact that there will still be people getting hurt!
It’s like the war on poverty! We take from the working class and give to the poor to help them get a leg-up, but the poor are happy with the crumbs, so they don’t want to get better, they are already doing better than they were before.
But liberals say see, “The poor are still poor, so we need to take MORE from the rich.” So, the rich are soaked, the “poor,” who now have more than they ever did are getting MORE, but are still “poor!” After a few years, the “poor” are asking for, no DEMANDING their next “helping!”
As long as there are people who are willing to live in a third world state, there will be a “poor” class. Until you change their state of mind, no amount of money you give to them will raise them out of poverty!
So you think that a pusher selling drugs to a minor is by choice? If so you need to spend time with a teen drug program and educate yourself on how pushers will sell something innocent at first and then gradually introduce stronger drugs over time.
Children and some adults do not have the mental capacity to understand the risks. The absence of punishment to pushers will encourage them to sell as much as they can as fast as they can as wide as they can.
RE: your discussions about Civil Rights and moral issues.
While not attempting to takes sides either way, I read this recently:
How can a Civil Right be a Moral Wrong?
(While this might sound simplistic to some, I found it meaningful.)
Carry on.
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.