Addicted to the Drug War

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | December 28, 2001 | Ilana Mercer

[dcwusmc]

Strela, can YOU answer this question honestly? Roscoe keeps ducking it for some reason.

[Roscoe]

Rephrase the "question."

[dcwusmc]

How would you like it re-phrased? and why?

[Roscoe]

How would you like it re-phrased?

In the form of a question would be nice.

[AKbear]

The sale of untaxed whiskey was prohibited during George Washington's presidency.

Sheesh, you are a broken record, Roscoe. That is not prohibition, that is taxation.

The problem with you is, you cannot come up with a logical, reasoned argument, so you just repeat yourself over and over again. Repetition does not make it right.

Besides, so far, all your arguments have been debunked. The secret in debates is to come up with a new argument when the old one has been debunked.

[elmer fudd]

The sale of untaxed whiskey was prohibited during George Washington's presidency

So what? The constitution gives congress the authority to levy taxes. It's irrelevent to the constitutionality of drug prohibition.

[Roscoe]

A power to tax sales of a substance encompasses a power to prohibit the sale of the untaxed substance. Contraband is subject to seizure and destruction.

That's the way it has been for centuries, revisionist claptrap notwithstanding.

[donh]

Hence, your cow and you committed statutory battery with those kids on the playground.

don, I hate to say it.. But you are a liar and that is a lie..

Oh, really? And your demonstration of this would be what? Would you like to to explain to you what a political theory is, and why this kind of abrasive response is inappropriate? I can be wrong about a political theory--but I cannot be either a liar or a truthteller.

"No force, no Fraud" rememeber?

And what do you think statutory rape/fraud/battery means? Force and fraud are the center of my argument, which you would know had you read it with your headlights on. You and your cow forced yourselves on those kids, who had no choice but to be on that playground. However, even they were putatively consenting it doesn't change a thing. Kids can't arbitrarily consent to the same degree adult citizens can, so behavior that might not be coercive or fraudulant between consenting adults might be for kids. Where that point is set is up to the law fairly untrammeled by libertarian theory, just like at what age we give driver's licenses to people is up to the law, fairly untrammeled by libertarian theory.

Now, suppose you prove this lie to me.. WHILE, I go dig up Harry Brown Quotes..

Oh, piffle, like I'd consult a politician on the subject of libertarian theory. When you can show me a quote from Van Mieses or Hayak or any seriously regarded political philosopher that contradicts me, than I might feel obligated to respond.

THEN, if you can prove this you can take me aside and tell me how we can have laws against some types of immoral behavior, but definately not others in your little Utopian dream world..

Pretty easily. Unlike you, I don't presume that because I don't like something, I therefore have a right to claim it's objectively immoral, and prohibitable. When I try to determine whether a law is legitimate, I ask first if it's Consitutional, not if its immoral, Rescuing slaves and witchs was once declared immoral, and therefore illegal. Immoral is not a reliable touchstone, it's how Catholics and Protestents found an excuse to hang each other once they got hold of the reigns of government. That's a big reason why our founding fathers bequithed us a consitutionally limited Republic, instead of a democracy or a monarchy, precisely so that your notion of immoral could not be nailed into my forehead whenever you got hold of the lawmaker's perogatives.

Cha-cha..

rooty-toot-toot.

[Roscoe]

So what? The constitution gives congress the authority to levy taxes.

And to regulate commerce among the states.

[AKbear]

Nice avoidance tactic, Roscoe. But that is an amateur debate tactic.

From the post refered to:

You come up with a way to run your WOsD that fits the COnstitution and Bill of Rights, that is NOT repugnant to the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th amendments and I will support you 1000%. Can you do it?

Looks like it is in the form of a question. You have a reading comprehension problem, Roscoe?

[Roscoe]

Can you do it?

That's your question?

[Roscoe]

The secret in debates is to come up with a new argument when the old one has been debunked.

Plenty of unintentional irony there.

[tpaine]

To: tpaine

Babble on. Keep imagining that you have made a logical retort. --- You are only embarrassing yourself, dimwit.

Oh, Okay TPaine.. You win again.

1075 posted on 1/1/02 6:53 PM Pacific by Jhoffa_

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1070

-------------------------------------

Nope, it appears you insisted on winning, and had post #1070 pulled. -- Say it isn't so.

[dcwusmc]

So how does that relate to the WOsD? They are NOT trying to TAX it. That fiction went out the window when the Supremes struck down the 1937 law because they noticed that, even though it was touted as a revenue-raising measure, NO TAX STAMPS WERE EVER ISSUED and none were INTENDED to be issued. You're knocking down another strawman.

[AKbear]

OMG, what twisted logic that is. Kinda like what the meaning of "is" is, huh? You and Bill Clinton would get along famously.

You really do have a problem with word meanings, don't ya Roscoe?

[elmer fudd]

You must be high on the drugs you want to prohibit if you can't understand such a simple concept. Yes, it is unconstitutional now for the federal government to prohibit the use of drugs. If they ammend the constitution, that changes things doesn't it? Simple enough concept for even you to understand. The income tax was unconstitutional yet the government wanted one anyway. How did they resolve this issue? They ammended the constitution in order to permit an income tax and legally there was no more problem.

[strela]

Nope, it appears you insisted on winning, and had post #1070 pulled. -- Say it isn't so.

I'll say it. Jhoffa_ wasn't the one who had that post pulled. The moderators here are very good at pulling posts that violate the rules.

[Roscoe]

When you can show me a quote from Van Mieses or Hayak

Did you mean Van Mises or Hayek?

[tpaine]

Fink?

[donh]

Until the temperance movement, we would not have dreamed of trying to regulate what people put in their mouths

The sale of untaxed whiskey was prohibited during George Washington's presidency.

A tax is not a regulation, nor does it imply the power to prohibit. The income tax did not give the government the right to decide what jobs you may hold, or whether or not you can hold a job. Your contentions on this subject are absurd hairsplitting dictionary wordgames.