i'm on the fence.
i have yet to fully conclude if protecting individual rights is a universal and objective imperative.
But think about it... I AM on the fence...
Why do liberals insist on subjective morality being laws?
- Thread starter BRUTALITOPS
- Start date
i'm on the fence.
i have yet to fully conclude if protecting individual rights is a universal and objective imperative.
But think about it... I AM on the fence...
not my group, try again bitch... I am probably for legalizing more drugs than YOU are.
For starters:
Mushrooms
Cocaine
Herion
Marijuana
Acid
Meth
Which I take is why you are against the death penalty.
Do we all have the right to be free, because we are born free?
At the very least we should strive to minimalize such subjectivity as much as possible.
Funding for the arts is NOT NECCESARY.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I think pot should be legalized, although schools and employers should have the ability to drug test them and have a policy against the drug, and should have the ability to fire offenders. Marijuania can cause memory degradation for as much as a month, and obvious short-term mental degradation, and I don't believe many colleges or workplaces could survive with employers and students who can't remember anything or work. They have a right to know about it.
But I believe Heroine, LSD, shrooms, meth, cocaine and other such drugs should remain illegal. They are either dangerous or simply too strong a messing with the human mind. Anyone caught with them should be sent to rehab and fined.
But I believe Heroine, LSD, shrooms, meth, cocaine and other such drugs should remain illegal. They are either dangerous or simply too strong a messing with the human mind. Anyone caught with them should be sent to rehab and fined.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I believe in funding for the arts...
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Which I take is why you are against the death penalty.
Do we all have the right to be free, because we are born free?
I would say so.
Do we all have the right to be free, because we are born free?
I would say so.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Watermark? Whats going on with you. Supporting the war on drugs, funding the arts?
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
What about the right to liberty? If one is the owner of the self does not that right to self ownership include the right to destroy oneself.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I don't support the war on drugs. I realize that we're never going to win it, I'm just settling for a more moderate solution than legalizing everything, as I think ti would be more pragmatic.
I don't think I'm a libertarian anymore. I'm fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. I'm in the same sphere, but I don't think that government is necessarily evil, nor do I believe that limiting individual actions, in most cases, is also evil. I seek moderation in those issues.
I swung to the right in my early years, then way to the a statist form of leftism, and then to libertarianism. I think I am finally starting to reconcile the three, and am finally starting to think what I truly believe instead of going off on irrelevant tangeants based on irrelevant things.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The mind is not above manipulation... although the taking of the drugs heroine and meth may be voluntary, the addiction is not. After a while it becomes all consuming. It messes with the brain, and destroys human nature. Am I "anti-liberty" for saying that such drugs should be limited?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Maybe if we come up with something to counteract the addiction. But we certainly know now that the addiction is going to kill them, and we must rehab them in order to save them. Maybe you equate this to "Save yourself, or else", but I don't care. The human brain CAN be messed with and is not perfect, and this is something complete libertarianism fails to account for.
So then how can you believe in prisons?
If you can not take away the right to life, why should we be able to take away freedom.. even with due process?
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Because the right to be free includes the right to protect yourself. To not be able to be free from those who wish you harm simply grants power to a different body than a government or warlord or whoever.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
I don't support the war on drugs. I realize that we're never going to win it, I'm just settling for a more moderate solution than legalizing everything, as I think ti would be more pragmatic.
When you abandon basic principle in favor of pragmatism as the bedrock for your political views you open the door to an anything goes type of policy. As an atomic libertarian I would not suggest relegalizing every single illegal drug with one stroke of the pen. However once marijuana is legalized the feasibility of leglaizing things like mushrooms and ecstacy can be looked at and then on to cocaine and methamphetamines. Beyond that if we pursue a market solution in which major manufacturers produce these drugs instead of criminals in a basement we can tax its sale, ensure its purity and control its sale to minors.
I'm in the same sphere, but I don't think that government is necessarily evil, nor do I believe that limiting individual actions, in most cases, is also evil. I seek moderation in those issues.
It has nothing to do with evil. I personally have a high threshold of what I would consider evil. What it has to do with is the rights of the individual and self harm is one of those individuals. Otherwise you reduce people to being mere supplicants to an entity with greater ability to use force upon them to make them behave in a manner the stronger entity deems suitable.
The mind is not above manipulation... although the taking of the drugs heroine and meth may be voluntary, the addiction is not. After a while it becomes all consuming. It messes with the brain, and destroys human nature. Am I "anti-liberty" for saying that such drugs should be limited?
Many things can be addictive: alcohol, cigarettes, video games, sex. To limit the ways in which an invidual chooses to alter their mind is to place state ownership over anothers mind. These drugs alter the mind however other things also alter it such as the imparting of knowledge, traumatic experience, and daily routine. A government has no legitimate authority to mandate that certain forms of mind alteration are acceptable but that others are not.
This is a cornerstone of social conservatism in that you desire that the state have the power to regulate personal behavior in order to foster a preconceived social order. There is little difference in curtailing drug usage than curtailing sex habits or censoring ideas.
When you abandon basic principle in favor of pragmatism as the bedrock for your political views you open the door to an anything goes type of policy. As an atomic libertarian I would not suggest relegalizing every single illegal drug with one stroke of the pen. However once marijuana is legalized the feasibility of leglaizing things like mushrooms and ecstacy can be looked at and then on to cocaine and methamphetamines. Beyond that if we pursue a market solution in which major manufacturers produce these drugs instead of criminals in a basement we can tax its sale, ensure its purity and control its sale to minors.
I'm in the same sphere, but I don't think that government is necessarily evil, nor do I believe that limiting individual actions, in most cases, is also evil. I seek moderation in those issues.
It has nothing to do with evil. I personally have a high threshold of what I would consider evil. What it has to do with is the rights of the individual and self harm is one of those individuals. Otherwise you reduce people to being mere supplicants to an entity with greater ability to use force upon them to make them behave in a manner the stronger entity deems suitable.
The mind is not above manipulation... although the taking of the drugs heroine and meth may be voluntary, the addiction is not. After a while it becomes all consuming. It messes with the brain, and destroys human nature. Am I "anti-liberty" for saying that such drugs should be limited?
Many things can be addictive: alcohol, cigarettes, video games, sex. To limit the ways in which an invidual chooses to alter their mind is to place state ownership over anothers mind. These drugs alter the mind however other things also alter it such as the imparting of knowledge, traumatic experience, and daily routine. A government has no legitimate authority to mandate that certain forms of mind alteration are acceptable but that others are not.
This is a cornerstone of social conservatism in that you desire that the state have the power to regulate personal behavior in order to foster a preconceived social order. There is little difference in curtailing drug usage than curtailing sex habits or censoring ideas.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Maybe if we come up with something to counteract the addiction. But we certainly know now that the addiction is going to kill them, and we must rehab them in order to save them. Maybe you equate this to "Save yourself, or else", but I don't care. The human brain CAN be messed with and is not perfect, and this is something complete libertarianism fails to account for.
You are saying it is the responsibility of government to protect you from being able to make bad decisions. There is no limitation on how big and oppressive government can grow to be when you give them the charge of saving people from themselves.
Government can only do enough to save us from each other. It will never be able to save us from ourselves.
But if you want to focus on pragmatism I say this simply, it won't work. 100 years of prohibition shows this.
You are saying it is the responsibility of government to protect you from being able to make bad decisions. There is no limitation on how big and oppressive government can grow to be when you give them the charge of saving people from themselves.
Government can only do enough to save us from each other. It will never be able to save us from ourselves.
But if you want to focus on pragmatism I say this simply, it won't work. 100 years of prohibition shows this.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
I take exception to that comment. Am I immature because I believe that the principles of liberty extend to the right to harm oneself?
Not if it infringes on the rights of others.
People who get themselves addicted to heroin, are a public burden to the rest of us - in terms of taxes, healthcare, and treatment.
Drugs should be treated as a public health threat. Not a crime.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
IHG, my position on the war on drugs would be considered ridiculously liberal by at least 95% of America. I have no idea how you can claim I am "selling out" on something I never believed in in the first place.