'
I think it would be neat to have a catch all thread of all the various arguments that people find out there in defense of the state. I am guessing that its going to end up being pretty funny, but we'll see.
I would like to keep it amateur, and have it consist mostly of things you have heard other people say to you in conversation or posts that people have replied to you on the internet. And if people are having trouble with some, I guess this would be an ok place for that as well.
Although these are my favorite, here are some recent ones I have come across:
"You therefore think that having no government is an option because things work better without them. I don't think its an option because I think that you would have so much competition that life would become unpleasant for the average citizen"
"you think about governments in absolute terms, I don't. I think they can do good for people. I think they can create situations where they drive down prices"
"You don't need a mansion to live. You don't need a nice car to live. You don't need breast implants to live. You don't need to visit a steakhouse to live. At some point in your life you will need healthcare to live. That's why it's something that should be provided to everyone.
The first role of any Government is to protect their people. Whether it's from foreign invasion or attack (ie by running an Armed Forces), from crime (police and justice system), from ignorance (education - because an uneducated population can't provide the skilled people needed to provide the other services) or from disease (health care). After that everything else is gravy, as they say.Taxes aren't stealing, they are everyone in society paying into the pot to provide the services that all of society needs. It's a common insurance policy against disease, ignorance, foreign attack and crime. You get no choice about it because if everyone had a choice about paying it then the premiums wouldn't be met and society would eventually break down.No matter what that twat Mises you keep quoting thought, the fact is that the 'free market' cannot replace Government, purely because it excludes the people who most need everyone else's help - those with no money. If you want to live somewhere without Government where the free market rules everything, why haven't you moved to Somalia? Or do you only really want to see the free market so long as it doesn't interfere with the comfortable life you already have in the over regulated hell hole that is the US of A?"
Look no further than the politics sub-reddit for a wealth of idiocy. Here are some vignettes I've personally encountered in the past 24 hours (I am "angryrabbit"):
(Note the massive down votes I have. People LOVE me.)
Daniel Waite: Look no further than the politics sub-reddit for a wealth of idiocy. Here are some vignettes I've personally encountered in the past 24 hours (I am "angryrabbit"): (Note the massive down votes I have. People LOVE me.)
We are all happy the taxes not. We are all not the modern.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
The common theme among arguments I observe is the (fallacious) assumption that, because I do not want the government providing a service, I do not want the service provided at all.
Why the hell do Democrats/Statists have such an emotional or fearful reaction against words like "unregulated"? and "free"? It seems non-libertarians always have a fucking problem when people are allowed to choose, or anything that is "more free". What is with the biased everyone has against freedom of choice?
Novus Zarathustra: Why the hell do Democrats/Statists have such an emotional or fearful reaction against words like "unregulated"? and "free"? It seems non-libertarians always have a fucking problem when people are allowed to choose, or anything that is "more free". What is with the biased everyone has against freedom of choice?
I'm not entirely sure, but it does seem to be a very central premise to most statist thought. I think the basic concern is about what people will choose to do if allowed to "freely" choose.
bloomj31: Novus Zarathustra: Why the hell do Democrats/Statists have such an emotional or fearful reaction against words like "unregulated"? and "free"? It seems non-libertarians always have a fucking problem when people are allowed to choose, or anything that is "more free". What is with the biased everyone has against freedom of choice? I'm not entirely sure, but it does seem to be a very central premise to most statist thought. I think the basic concern is about what people will choose to do if allowed to "freely" choose.
Republicans are just as bad, if not worse, for hiding behind a facade of advocating capitalism. Capitalistic approaches to sex are met with heavy resistance, for just one example.
bloomj31, keep in mind that whilst you talk about leftists as statists you are an avowed statist yourself. Whatever you say is utterly unscientific and irrelevant because, regardless of any appeal to subjective "political preference", any message of peace and prosperity doesn't follow from your Grundgedanke (central premise).
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
I never said that I wasn't afraid of what people would do if allowed to make choices freely. I also never said that this fear was singularly applicable to leftists.
Whether or not peace and prosperity follow from this central premise, I do not know.
I advocate socialism but not as much socialism as the leftists do. Or at least socialism for different things.
In other words, the fight between the right and the left in America is not a fight about whether or not socialism will exist but about what things will be socialized and to what extent they'll be socialized. I've come to realize this by talking to people on this forum.
I should really add here that I've come to understand that peace and prosperity are not my central goals. They're certainly top priorities. But my first priority is order. Order and by extension predictability and stability. Right now, what bothers me the most about the way the US government is being run is that it's being run seemingly without any rules at all. So there's absolutely no predictability. We have regime uncertainty.
@bloomj31: You're for socialism... and you value "order" above "peace and prosperity". How does "order" come about? By someone demanding order?
I'm for socialism when it comes to certain things.
I dunno how order comes about, I just know it's maintained by force or at least the threat of force. I don't think an-caps disagree with this, they just think that threat doesn't have to be paid for by a public pot or that it needs to be centralized.
In other words, an-caps don't favor a society without rules and laws and police and a military, they just think they should be created and maintained through private means.
So, in that sense, I think an-caps put order as a pretty high priority too, they just want to establish and maintain it differently.
bloomj31:I should really add here that I've come to understand that peace and prosperity are not my central goals.... But my first priority is order.
If order isn't "peace and prosperity", then order is violence and poverty? What you said didn't come out all that clear. Maybe you want to reiterate.
What bloomj31 is advocating is that most aggressive coercion is a systematic, regular, predictable pattern rather than random and unpredictable.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
came across these today:
"No, the value of currency is set by whoever issues that currency, end of. "
"At a basic level, whoever is responsible for historically minting a currency or today printing it sets, controls and safeguards it's value. Without these controls you would get rampant inflation or deflation"
meambobbo: What bloomj31 is advocating is that most aggressive coercion is a systematic, regular, predictable pattern rather than random and unpredictable.
I guess having a state is better than the hypothetical Hobbesian jungle, but people fail to realize that anarchy is not a lack of law per se. It is fallacious that a state is able to provide law in a "systematic, regular, predictable pattern". See this piece by Kinsella on how civil legislation breeds uncertainty.
Really, the whole argument falls apart. What is prediction good for, if not to prevent bad things from happening? To come to grips with reality and attempt to emotionally prepare for it? worthless
In any case, the state-managed society is obviously not perfectly predictable, nor is anarchy perfectly unpredictable. The question is can a system of competitive private insurers, investigators, police men, repo men, courts, etc produce more or less unpredictable, unwanted events, compared to a state owned and/or regulated (planned) system, for the same cost. If they function better than the state system, it is surely more preferable, because it involves only voluntary contracts between all participants.
I doubt anarchy produces more common crime, but even if it did, there would still be arguments that it is preferable.
In exchange for utter security based upon low taxation margins. The benefits one receives under a minarchist state, so long as one assumes that a state of relatively peaceful anarchism is impossible, are massive. According to his assumptions bloomj is advocating an amputation of a finger to save the body. Indeed making force known as to its extent and its regularity is far more civil and less barbaric than performing this task randomly would be, although both acts are barbaric at their core.
I do not agree with the minarchists but I'm tired of seeing them get smacked around when everything that they advocate makes relative sense.
bloomj31:I'm for socialism when it comes to certain things. I dunno how order comes about, I just know it's maintained by force or at least the threat of force. I don't think an-caps disagree with this, they just think that threat doesn't have to be paid for by a public pot or that it needs to be centralized. In other words, an-caps don't favor a society without rules and laws and police and a military, they just think they should be created and maintained through private means. So, in that sense, I think an-caps put order as a pretty high priority too, they just want to establish and maintain it differently.
Your summary of an-cap jives fine with mine. But according to you, you're a socialist "about certain things". What things and why?
I never said the state managed society is perfectly predictable. I am not saying that an anarchist society would be perfectly unpredictable. Nothing is ever that black and white.
I'm also not under the impression that anarchists are about not having rules and law. I just...have less faith in private law and private courts than some an-caps do. That's all. But hey, if you guys can make it work, I'll be all for it.
I'm not really saying a peaceful and prosperous anarchist society is impossible, I'm saying I'm willing to bet it doesn't happen anytime soon. So, since I don't think we're going to get that, I try to figure out how to make things work with what I've got. And what I've got is state managed societies. And I'm not totally uncomfortable with that as long as the people running the state are bound by some kind of clear, concise rules. As of now, they're not. Now, as to which of our visions is more utopian, I think that's irrelevant. What matters is that I want the same things as anarchists, for the most part, I just prioritize some of them differently and I go about getting them differently.
It should also be added that because humans cannot see into the future, there is always some measure of unpredictability inherent in life and thus inherent in all human systems. We can't ever really know what's going to happen in the future, we can just speculate.
Daniel Waite: Your summary of an-cap jives fine with mine. But according to you, you're a socialist "about certain things". What things and why?
Roads, infrastructure, military, police, courts, garbage disposal etc.
The basics. Because I see no reason to switch things around. I don't understand why I should want to make them private. They work ok for me the way they are and I don't try to fix things unless I think they're broken. The broken parts of socialism are mainly entitlements imo. They're utterly unsustainable. It would be nice if that kinda socialism could work forever, but it can't. Now, is the trade off between getting stuff now and not having stuff later worth it? I don't know. Modern progressives think so. I think not.
Yes, essentially. Then we can argue about how much coercion is acceptable and where it should be applied and all that but that's a tough convo and I know that for most an-caps, any amount of coercion is too much.
bloomj31: Daniel Waite: Your summary of an-cap jives fine with mine. But according to you, you're a socialist "about certain things". What things and why? Roads, infrastructure, military, police, courts, garbage disposal etc. The basics. ... The broken parts of socialism are mainly entitlements imo. They're utterly unsustainable.
The basics. ... The broken parts of socialism are mainly entitlements imo. They're utterly unsustainable.
Do you see the problem here?
You already feel you are entitled to certain things.
Daniel Waite: Do you see the problem here? You already feel you are entitled to certain things.
Semantics. I think you know what I'm talking about.
bloomj31:Semantics.
Semantics.
Definitions.
bloomj31:I think you know what I'm talking about.
I think you know what I'm talking about.
Let's pretend I don't. Are you willing to help me understand?
Also, I suggest watching Into the Wild. It illustrates the harshness of man in his "natural state" vis-a-vis nature. That is, man without society.
bloomj31:Roads, infrastructure, military, police, courts, garbage disposal etc.
Roads: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14140118/The-Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-Walter-Block
Infrastructure: same thing.
Garbage disposal: http://mises.org/MediaPlayer.aspx?Id=4991
Military, police, and courts I can't speak for, but you should look up the failures of government in all of these things.
Yes, I am a huge Dodgers fan.
Anti-state since I learned about the Cuban Revolution and why my dad had to flee the country.
Beer, Guns and Baseball My blog
tonyfernandez: bloomj31:Roads, infrastructure, military, police, courts, garbage disposal etc. Roads: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14140118/The-Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-Walter-Block Infrastructure: same thing. Garbage disposal: http://mises.org/MediaPlayer.aspx?Id=4991 Military, police, and courts I can't speak for, but you should look up the failures of government in all of these things.
Ofcourse there have been failures of government in everything. That doesn't change anything for me.
I'm really not saying that everything couldn't be done privately, I just don't understand why it needs to be. Is there really that much to gain?
bloomj31: Ofcourse there have been failures of government in everything. That doesn't change anything for me. I'm really not saying that everything couldn't be done privately, I just don't understand why it needs to be. Is there really that much to gain?
I'm afraid there is. The state is incapable of providing anything for the masses nearly as well as the market can.
On topic, here's one I got on debating the morality of property rights:
Me: "If private property is immoral, then how is it immoral for me to, say, burn down your house?"
Him: "Because everyone else got together and made a law that says you can't."
Azure: I'm afraid there is. The state is incapable of providing anything for the masses nearly as well as the market can.
Even if that's true, and I'm not saying it's not, you're going to have a hell of a time convincing certain state beneficiaries that they aren't being well provided for by the government. Do you know why they call Social Security and Medicare the "third rail" of politics?
On Topic:
I need a little help here, I don't know what went wrong. My friend insists that I see these situations for myself for my argument to be credible.
well what does she want to do about all that?
bloomj31: well what does she want to do about all that?
I've told her, she can volunteer to help. However, how was my rhetoric? We argued about various things like the Drug War(which she supports) and minimum wage.
Off topic:
Shes hot :P too bad she has a boyfriend, we get into debates quite often. I dont mind it though, its better then having an overly clingy girl who just sits there and absorbs all the shit you say...
I mean it sounded reasonable, imo. Could come off as insensitive to someone not familiar with the arguments and clearly she reacted emotionally.
Kinda more used to the girls who just sit there and listen tbh.
bloomj31:I mean it sounded reasonable, imo. Could come off as insensitive to someone not familiar with the arguments and clearly she reacted emotionally
Well, honestly, I linked her to the Stossel video on sweatshops, she didn't watch it. She denies any credability of an argument that comes from information in a video or something written.
Here is our conversation on the Drug War. At least she agrees that Marijuana is not a "drug" or harmful at all..
4/2/2010 3:56:39 AM Kelly Carl Earlier you mentioned the "war on drugs" and the government shouldn't be holding people's hands through their choices 4/2/2010 3:56:46 AM Kelly Carl Does thatmean you think drugs should be legal? 4/2/2010 3:56:49 AM Kelly Carl all drugs? 4/2/2010 3:57:16 AM Carl Kelly Im not sure what would happen exactly if all drugs were legal, but ideally they would eventually be. 4/2/2010 3:57:20 AM Carl Kelly I want pot to be legal 4/2/2010 3:57:24 AM Carl Kelly right now 4/2/2010 3:57:35 AM Kelly Carl You want heroin and crack and meth and coke to be legal? 4/2/2010 3:57:40 AM Kelly Carl let alone opiates 4/2/2010 3:57:51 AM Kelly Carl ketamine? 4/2/2010 3:57:56 AM Carl Kelly Well if heroine was illegal 4/2/2010 3:58:01 AM Carl Kelly err 4/2/2010 3:58:16 AM Carl Kelly if drugs were all legal then there be almost no crime at all 4/2/2010 3:58:19 AM Kelly Carl ..... 4/2/2010 3:58:21 AM Carl Kelly since all the drug lords would lose money 4/2/2010 3:58:26 AM Kelly Carl Um 4/2/2010 3:58:27 AM Kelly Carl hahahah 4/2/2010 3:58:30 AM Carl Kelly Gangs get their money by trading drugs 4/2/2010 3:58:39 AM Kelly Carl I...don't think you've known many drug addicts 4/2/2010 3:58:40 AM Kelly Carl have you 4/2/2010 3:58:47 AM Carl Kelly Actually quite a lot 4/2/2010 3:58:55 AM Carl Kelly I dont know how the other drugs would wor 4/2/2010 3:58:57 AM Carl Kelly work* 4/2/2010 3:59:01 AM Carl Kelly but pot should be legalized 4/2/2010 3:59:13 AM Kelly Carl You've known coke or meth addicts and you think there would be LESS crime if it were legal? 4/2/2010 3:59:16 AM Kelly Carl :noid 4/2/2010 3:59:50 AM Carl Kelly lol 4/2/2010 3:59:57 AM Carl Kelly do you think theres no logic behind it? 4/2/2010 4:00:07 AM Kelly Carl Yes, i think there's no logic behind it 4/2/2010 4:00:10 AM Kelly Carl you didn't answer my question 4/2/2010 4:00:17 AM Kelly Carl have you known any? 4/2/2010 4:00:54 AM Carl Kelly Well theres a lot behind it, the idea is that decriminalizing drugs would let the police to concentrate on putting rapists and murderers in prison 4/2/2010 4:01:05 AM Carl Kelly since they wouldn't be filling cells with addicts 4/2/2010 4:01:15 AM Kelly Carl You didn't answer my question! 4/2/2010 4:01:22 AM Carl Kelly lol i did 4/2/2010 4:01:25 AM Carl Kelly I said I have known 4/2/2010 4:01:37 AM Carl Kelly well I dont know if potheads can be considered addicts 4/2/2010 4:01:40 AM Kelly Carl no 4/2/2010 4:01:42 AM Kelly Carl they can't 4/2/2010 4:01:50 AM Kelly Carl that's why I asked more specifically 4/2/2010 4:01:54 AM Kelly Carl coke or meth 4/2/2010 4:01:57 AM Kelly Carl known any? 4/2/2010 4:02:35 AM Kelly Carl I'll take that as a no. 4/2/2010 4:02:41 AM Kelly Carl And it's an obvious one. 4/2/2010 4:02:48 AM Carl Kelly no 4/2/2010 4:03:08 AM Kelly Carl Because if you ever had any friends that you watched move into those 4/2/2010 4:03:12 AM Kelly Carl you'd know why they're illegal 4/2/2010 4:03:17 AM Kelly Carl and they encourage crime 4/2/2010 4:03:22 AM Kelly Carl because peopel lose their heads 4/2/2010 4:03:36 AM Kelly Carl they get violent 4/2/2010 4:03:40 AM Carl Kelly yeah but the idea is, with them legalized police would focus on the crimes they commit 4/2/2010 4:03:47 AM Carl Kelly like if a drug addict commits murder 4/2/2010 4:03:55 AM Carl Kelly they wouldnt just lock them up for possessing the drugs 4/2/2010 4:03:57 AM Kelly Carl Or, we could prevent the murder 4/2/2010 4:04:09 AM Kelly Carl by keeps excessive drugs off the streets 4/2/2010 4:04:11 AM Kelly Carl you legalize them 4/2/2010 4:04:13 AM Carl Kelly How? we aren't by locking them up for possessing the drugs 4/2/2010 4:04:16 AM Kelly Carl you say "it's okay to do them" 4/2/2010 4:04:21 AM Carl Kelly they go to jail with VIOLENT criminals 4/2/2010 4:04:24 AM Kelly Carl they go through rehabs for the drugs 4/2/2010 4:04:28 AM Carl Kelly and them come out as violent cirminals 4/2/2010 4:04:33 AM Kelly Carl therefore they have a chance at being a fine member of society 4/2/2010 4:04:46 AM Kelly Carl The idea that...let everyone take those drugs and lock them up when they DO something 4/2/2010 4:04:50 AM Kelly Carl is assinine 4/2/2010 4:04:54 AM Kelly Carl asinine*? 4/2/2010 4:04:55 AM Kelly Carl whatever 4/2/2010 4:04:56 AM Kelly Carl spelling 4/2/2010 4:05:15 AM Carl Kelly lol its not the idea of letting them do drugs 4/2/2010 4:05:29 AM Kelly Carl Legalizing them tells people it's okay to do them. 4/2/2010 4:05:32 AM Carl Kelly crack, meth and heroine had medical applications 4/2/2010 4:05:42 AM Carl Kelly Yeah but the idea isn't so taht they are easy to access 4/2/2010 4:05:46 AM Kelly Carl :tare 4/2/2010 4:05:47 AM Carl Kelly and that peopel and do it easier 4/2/2010 4:05:52 AM Kelly Carl Heroin did not have a medical application 4/2/2010 4:05:55 AM Carl Kelly I dont know what their medical applications were 4/2/2010 4:05:55 AM Kelly Carl they were looking for 4/2/2010 4:06:02 AM Kelly Carl a less addictive version of morphine 4/2/2010 4:06:04 AM Kelly Carl IT DIDNT WORK. 4/2/2010 4:06:15 AM Kelly Carl And, honestly? Don't quote shit you've heard if you can't back it dude 4/2/2010 4:06:19 AM Kelly Carl it makes you look bad 4/2/2010 4:06:33 AM Kelly Carl Crack is a street drug 4/2/2010 4:06:37 AM Kelly Carl meth is a street drug 4/2/2010 4:06:48 AM Carl Kelly Where they always street drugs? 4/2/2010 4:07:48 AM Kelly Carl What you buy on the street is 4/2/2010 4:08:02 AM Kelly Carl that's why cerrtain things in drug stores are black listed 4/2/2010 4:08:08 AM Kelly Carl if you go in and start buying a ton of it 4/2/2010 4:08:23 AM Kelly Carl people start cooking a 4/2/2010 4:08:34 AM Kelly Carl "Home made" version 4/2/2010 4:08:44 AM Kelly Carl of what scientists came up with, because it makes you off your head 4/2/2010 4:08:50 AM Kelly Carl it is not pretty 4/2/2010 4:09:32 AM Kelly Carl crack has always been a street drug,as far as I'm aware, as it was an adaptation to cocaine 4/2/2010 4:09:39 AM Kelly Carl which, while some people, like Freud 4/2/2010 4:09:46 AM Kelly Carl did try to say it had medical uses 4/2/2010 4:09:52 AM Kelly Carl they all simply became addicts 4/2/2010 4:10:01 AM Kelly Carl because it's a very powerful substance, and crack is like 4/2/2010 4:10:12 AM Kelly Carl the ugly cousin at the party that knocks over the bowl of punch. 4/2/2010 4:10:20 AM Kelly Carl Ketamine has medical usage, sure 4/2/2010 4:10:25 AM Kelly Carl for animals. 4/2/2010 4:10:40 AM Kelly Carl and, any of those drugs can kill you the first time you try. 4/2/2010 4:11:05 AM Kelly Carl Pot, however 4/2/2010 4:11:10 AM Kelly Carl is never going to kill anyone 4/2/2010 4:11:28 AM Kelly Carl the substance isn't addictive, people just get addicted to feeling high 4/2/2010 4:11:41 AM Kelly Carl the drug is only a "gateway" drug for those who are weak of mind 4/2/2010 4:11:52 AM Kelly Carl Pot doesn't wreck lives, people wreck their own lives 4/2/2010 4:12:03 AM Carl Kelly Yeah and strangely its what peopel think its the most dangerous fucking drug 4/2/2010 4:12:03 AM Kelly Carl much like drinking, if you plan to not smoke and drive 4/2/2010 4:12:13 AM Kelly Carl and you smoke in the safety of your home or an establishment 4/2/2010 4:12:24 AM Carl Kelly Its a Type #1 Narcotic by the Dept of Health above Heroine 4/2/2010 4:12:25 AM Kelly Carl nothing bad can ever come from it 4/2/2010 4:12:33 AM Kelly Carl it's....not...a narcotic 4/2/2010 4:12:55 AM Carl Kelly Maybe its another word that starts with N 4/2/2010 4:13:00 AM Carl Kelly but it sounded like it.. 4/2/2010 4:13:07 AM Kelly Carl ummm... :hmm no I 4/2/2010 4:13:08 AM Carl Kelly im tired 4/2/2010 4:13:09 AM Kelly Carl don't think so. 4/2/2010 4:13:12 AM Carl Kelly I cant think of it 4/2/2010 4:13:13 AM Carl Kelly but 4/2/2010 4:13:21 AM Kelly Carl you getting this from another video you watched? :P 4/2/2010 4:13:23 AM Carl Kelly its above heroine on the "danger" spectrum which is retarded 4/2/2010 4:13:46 AM Carl Kelly Eh, something on the war on drugs a long time ago 4/2/2010 4:13:54 AM Kelly Carl Yeah, I figured. 4/2/2010 4:14:11 AM Carl Kelly Mayb eI'll have to watch it again just so that I can win an argument with you 4/2/2010 4:14:12 AM Kelly Carl and, if I remember my crimal charges correctly 4/2/2010 4:14:14 AM Kelly Carl it's not true 4/2/2010 4:14:25 AM Kelly Carl quoting that video will not win an argument with me :P 4/2/2010 4:14:32 AM Kelly Carl you were asking about drug culture before 4/2/2010 4:14:42 AM Kelly Carl I guess now is a fair time to try and give you an idea. 4/2/2010 4:14:55 AM Kelly Carl Different drugs fit in different social scenes because of the effects. 4/2/2010 4:15:01 AM Kelly Carl The reason in any movie with a rave 4/2/2010 4:15:05 AM Carl Kelly Well the issue I should say, is not drugs, its the DRUG WAR 4/2/2010 4:15:20 AM Kelly Carl everybody's smiling and drinking water and falling around 4/2/2010 4:15:31 AM Kelly Carl because the sort of people who go to a rave are there "to have fun" 4/2/2010 4:15:48 AM Kelly Carl whether this is your light bright classic candy raver sort 4/2/2010 4:15:56 AM Kelly Carl or a more grungey rock and roll sort 4/2/2010 4:15:59 AM Carl Kelly yeah and the assholes ruin it for peopel whoa ctually like rave music and dancing 4/2/2010 4:16:01 AM Kelly Carl you're gonna have X 4/2/2010 4:16:03 AM Kelly Carl MDMA 4/2/2010 4:16:05 AM Kelly Carl Acid 4/2/2010 4:16:07 AM Kelly Carl Shrooms 4/2/2010 4:16:11 AM Kelly Carl speed 4/2/2010 4:16:19 AM Kelly Carl prrrobably coke 4/2/2010 4:16:37 AM Kelly Carl Because they make you happy, they make you feel awesome, attractive, they make you see pretty colors 4/2/2010 4:16:52 AM Kelly Carl for most of these sorts of people, it's a night off from real life 4/2/2010 4:16:58 AM Kelly Carl and for some, it becomes a sad lifestyle 4/2/2010 4:17:10 AM Kelly Carl where they're hunting down the next rave every week, barely showering 4/2/2010 4:17:20 AM Kelly Carl etc. etc. 4/2/2010 4:17:40 AM Kelly Carl Go to a house party in new york, guarentee you 4/2/2010 4:17:45 AM Kelly Carl the pot heads are in the living room being social 4/2/2010 4:17:56 AM Kelly Carl drinkers near them, grabbing beers from the fridge 4/2/2010 4:18:12 AM Kelly Carl then, in a closed bedroom, you'll have your heroin users and pillsnorters 4/2/2010 4:18:25 AM Kelly Carl never seen anyone shoot up at a house party, tends to be more of a 4/2/2010 4:18:28 AM Kelly Carl household addiction 4/2/2010 4:18:33 AM Kelly Carl when you have needles 4/2/2010 4:18:36 AM Kelly Carl they snort it 4/2/2010 4:18:38 AM Carl Kelly I've seen Requiem For a Dream 4/2/2010 4:18:45 AM Kelly Carl that's nice 4/2/2010 4:18:47 AM Kelly Carl good flick 4/2/2010 4:18:49 AM Carl Kelly Its pretty devestating 4/2/2010 4:18:57 AM Kelly Carl watched it 2 days after my friend died from a heroin OD 4/2/2010 4:18:59 AM Kelly Carl bad idea! 4/2/2010 4:19:04 AM Carl Kelly I know its just a movie, but its pretty realistic 4/2/2010 4:19:16 AM Carl Kelly about drug lives 4/2/2010 4:19:20 AM Kelly Carl :noid 4/2/2010 4:19:34 AM Kelly Carl ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :hmm it's a good artistic representation 4/2/2010 4:19:38 AM Kelly Carl I wouldn't call it realistic 4/2/2010 4:19:48 AM Carl Kelly lol this guy makes excellent points on the war on drugs 4/2/2010 4:19:49 AM Carl Kelly # The drug war has maimed, traumatized, or displaced uncounted numbers of people. # In spite of it, drug use has remained embedded in the way we live. # The costs of drug prohibition now far outweigh any possible benefits. # Penalizing drug use drives otherwise law-abiding people into the criminal economy. 4/2/2010 4:20:12 AM Kelly Carl :lolbullshit 4/2/2010 4:20:16 AM Carl Kelly # Prohibition exposes drug users to major health risks. # Illegal drugs can't easily be tested for quality and toxicity. # A great many drug users in years past lived productive lives before drugs were banned. # Drug users face inflated prices, health risks, and the threat of jail. # Politicians who have used drugs have not suffered any significant political fallout. # The extreme profit rea 4/2/2010 4:20:25 AM Carl Kelly # The extreme profit reaped from selling illegal drugs corrupts institutions and wrecks lives. # The antidrug crusade in Mexico has escalated into something like low-intensity warfare. # Some states have been more or less wholly captured by drug money 4/2/2010 4:20:39 AM Kelly Carl Load 4/2/2010 4:20:39 AM Kelly Carl of 4/2/2010 4:20:40 AM Kelly Carl shit 4/2/2010 4:20:43 AM Kelly Carl where is the back up? 4/2/2010 4:20:44 AM Kelly Carl where? 4/2/2010 4:20:46 AM Kelly Carl it's not there 4/2/2010 4:20:49 AM Kelly Carl wonder why 4/2/2010 4:21:00 AM Kelly Carl no SHIT drug users face inflated prices 4/2/2010 4:21:00 AM Carl Kelly it is 4/2/2010 4:21:02 AM Kelly Carl ITS ILLEGAL 4/2/2010 4:21:04 AM Carl Kelly He sources a book 4/2/2010 4:21:05 AM Kelly Carl and DANGEROUS 4/2/2010 4:21:20 AM Kelly Carl if I want to go buy myself an illegal tiger 4/2/2010 4:21:29 AM Kelly Carl you're damn fucking right it's going to be expensive 4/2/2010 4:21:32 AM Kelly Carl should I lobby for that? 4/2/2010 4:21:39 AM Kelly Carl I have the right to own illegal animals because 4/2/2010 4:21:41 AM Kelly Carl I want them 4/2/2010 4:21:43 AM Kelly Carl and 4/2/2010 4:21:50 AM Kelly Carl you waste your time throwing me in jail 4/2/2010 4:21:54 AM Kelly Carl for animal smuggling 4/2/2010 4:21:57 AM Kelly Carl yeah, I think that's good 4/2/2010 4:21:59 AM Kelly Carl I'll go with it 4/2/2010 4:22:34 AM Kelly Carl In fact, why is anything illegal? 4/2/2010 4:22:38 AM Kelly Carl if I want to do it 4/2/2010 4:22:43 AM Kelly Carl you're wasting time and money catching me! 4/2/2010 4:22:48 AM Kelly Carl I'm going to do it anyway! 4/2/2010 4:22:51 AM Kelly Carl ANARCHY!
well, it's not that her personal experience with these people/drugs is totally invalid, and it's not as if anyone wants people to be doing drugs and harming people, but the question is: how do we prevent that?
Sounds like a good convo though, at least she's smart. And compassionate. Good traits to have imo.
bloomj31:well, it's not that her personal experience with these people/drugs is totally invalid, and it's not as if anyone wants people to be doing drugs and harming people, but the question is: how do we prevent that?
Any good articles on this? I was going to argue private property, like Walter's argument on how the market protects animals better.
bloomj31:Sounds like a good convo though, at least she's smart. And compassionate. Good traits to have imo.
Quite rare too...I mostly stay single because I feel that women are burdensome. I want someone who is enjoyable to be around, not clingy....
I just hope I don't sink her respect for me from our debates. Though, I can't say it woudl be worth trying to avoid them.
I don't know any good articles. I just know that every action has a cost. The cost of keeping a lot of drugs illegal is that a lot of people get thrown in jail and that black markets develop around these drugs and that makes them more dangerous/expensive to get. I mean just because they legalize them doesn't mean they can't regulate the drugs. They can tax them. Not necessarily the ideal solution but something worth considering and taxing and regulating is something most lefties like. But maybe, for her, it's worth keeping them illegal so she feels like she's helping to protect people and for her that price is worth any amount of ineffectiveness or inefficiency or injustice. I cannot say though, I don't know her.
bloomj31:I don't know any good articles. I just know that every action has a cost. The cost of keeping a lot of drugs illegal is that a lot of people get thrown in jail and that black markets develop around these drugs and that makes them more dangerous/expensive to get. I mean just because they legalize them doesn't mean they can't regulate the drugs. They can tax them. Not necessarily the ideal solution but something worth considering and taxing and regulating is something most lefties like.
So maybe just for argument's sake... I should avoid hinting at my Anarcho-Capitalist views..
Novus Zarathustra: So maybe just for argument's sake... I should avoid hinting at my Anarcho-Capitalist views..
I dunno, does she even know what anarcho-capitalism is? I mean if someone had told me like...4 or 5 years ago, before I ever learned anything about this stuff, that there were systems of thought that didn't involve government, I'd have laughed. I still do find some anarcho-capitalist ideas to be pretty extreme and I come on this site everyday, I've got like 2k posts. Know what I mean?
Novus Zarathustra:So maybe just for argument's sake... I should avoid hinting at my Anarcho-Capitalist views..
You can't stop people from doing what they want to do. Banning products just leads to black markets, were entrepreneurs are replaced by very dangerous criminals, eventually leading to brutal gang wars. The government spends trillions trying to prevent people from harming themselves, and all in vein.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
I'm sure it helps some people but at what cost? I mean every government program is going to help someone. The programs/agendas get pushed for a reason. But who really benefits (or should I say how many really benefit and how many see no benefit whatsoever and how many are somewhere in between?) And at whose expense?