Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
![[Most Recent Charts from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_4.gif)
![[Most Recent Charts from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_4.gif)
Follow by Email
When ordering, be sure to mention our blog
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
Searchfest
Custom Search
Required Reading
Followers
17 comments:
I agree 10,000%
I grudgenly concede the point is well made. Don't go slamming others when you get just as angry for others hitting your.
For a staunch conservative, thats saying something. :^) Hat tip sir - have a great weekend.
Agree with all of that except abortions. That's depriving someone of life. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Ah, I wholeheartedly agree!
Well yes and no.
I don’t like gay marriage and won’t get one, no issue. However, when the government condones gay marriage, it means benefits for those in gay marriages, which will come from my taxes for gov/mil and in the form of higher prices for businesses that are forced into supporting this through the laws that will trickle down. You don’t have to do it, but you will be forced to pay for it. Unintended consequences.
How is killing someone – abortion – a right? Having sex is a right. Having an abortion is murder. If someone has sex by their own choice, knowing that having a child is potential consequence is part of the deal. No, murder is not a right and should not be confused with one. Have sex, take responsibility.
Some drugs are addictive enough and can effect behavior enough they should be controlled. Maybe pot should be legalized, but there are a lot more powerful things out there these days, and even from the past. This is not an argument that can be used on guns, which are inanimate objects that cannot alter someone’s brain chemistry like, for example, PCP. This is a whole other level than alcohol. I’ve personally been affected by other people’s drug issues, and that’s when it was illegal. It’s a fantasy to think there would not be huge secondary and tertiary consequences for legalizing certain categories of drugs.
@ All, abortion is kind of a sticky one in there. I don't particularly like it but I like our government getting involved in it even less. I am uncomfortable with one viewpoint or moral code being forced on everyone.
@11:34, Chief Instructor once said "I live my life as a social conservative, but won't impose my personal moral code on others. I expect the same courtesy from others." It pretty much sums my thoughts on the topic up.
@Suburban Survivalist, I have a whole post on gay marriage coming up which should be big fun. Why should Bob get to provide benefits for his longtime companion Jill but Tim who has the same job shouldn't be able to do so for Bob?Should we eliminate bennies for spouses entirely?
When it comes to drugs I have to disagree with you. Prohibition V2 has only been successful in creating a massive industry of policing and prisons and even worse problems with gangs and violence. Basically everything prohibition V1 did on a larger scale.
Look at places where drugs are legal. Use decreases because governments have succeeded in making them BORING. Also people aren't, on any large scale and particularly with hard drugs, going to start using them just because they are suddenly legal. "Well gee, my life as a successful X is going great but now that crack is legal I think I will smoke a bunch of it." I don't think so. Do drugs hurt people yes, but folks are already getting the drugs now. I am not convinced that usage or it's negative affects (which are already largely the problematic crimes anyway: robbery, theft, assault, etc)would change significantly if drugs were legal.
Booze, smokes and fast food hurt way more peoples lives than drugs. You don't see anybody suggesting fat police at McDonalds tossing people out because they are obese and nobody is suggesting that.
The point, as I see it is that folks shouldn't be able to tell other folks how to live their lives, good or bad.
-TOR
it is any object in the hands of man that becomes the problem.
sensibility running amuck is what is lacking.
says alot for mans ability as well when it comes to his impulsive drives.
Remember, drugs and guns do not kill, it's the judgement of the man who pulls the trigger.
We don't need any more laws to "protect" us from ourselves!
notutopia
That's a feel-good bumper sticker and sure sounds like a great idea. Live and let live, right? However, it conveniently ignores the second and third order effects of those behaviors. Just because the first-order participants might not be "harmed" does not mean that there aren't grevious effects further down the chain. We would do well to consider them before haphazardly permitting a behavior.
Like gay marriage. Fine, but don't expect everyone to think its normal and squelch people's free speech against it. If you are so convinced it is normal—you shouldn't give a rip what some religious group says. And, don't expect me to subsidize it either through taxes or insurance premiums.
Like cigarettes? Fine, but I don't. I don't want to walk through your cloud of smoke to enter/leave a public place. Personally, I have severe allergies to cigarette smoke and when you light up upwind of me it affects me like it would if I sprayed peper spray in your general direction—maybe that's an idea : ) Again, don'y ask me to pay for you medical bills related to it.
Abortions? Well there was a time when both women and slaves were considered property and you could do anything with them. We have moved beyond that. Why we don't see an unborn child as having rights and being human I will never understand. Besides, with very few acceptions, you made the choice to engage in an activity where the natural outcome is to produce a child—with all the sex-ed in public schools I figured people should know that.
Like sex? Fine. My personal convictions are that is should be within marriage. That said, it is not an area where the government should be at all with the exception of minors. I don't want the government in my bedroom and I wouldn't support it in somebody else's whether they are gay, unmarried, etc. This one ties in with the previous one as well. It's been around a long time so don't act suprised when it "works" and you end up pregnant. It's like the 400lb guy at the all-you-can-eat buffet acting like a victim because he's fat. What do you think will happen if you eat 5lbs of food at a time.
Like drugs? Not much to say on this one, but unless you live on an island and have no family or loved ones, it is going to affect someone else—eventually. Then again if you've got nobody and are alone on a island, you probably need them.
Like porn? Assuming the actresses are willing (many are not), consenting adults, fine I concede that I simply don't have to watch it. But that "industry" needs to be sure this stuff isn't available to minors. There should be age verification before accessing the stuff.
Like alcohol? Fine—in fact—wonderful. It is a good thing. Enjoy responsibly as the ads say. But, don't drive. You're "couple of drinks" combined with being behind the wheel of a several thousand-pound vehicle makes you as much of a danger to me and my family as an armed robber in my house at night—and should probably meet the same fate. Sorry—but there is no excuse on this one. If you can't figure out how to party without driving you shoudn't party. I have got a strong opinion for personal reasons. Also, if alcohol makes you beat on people, cheat on your spouse, etc. then don't unless you're on that island with the guy with the drugs—he won't care.
Like guns? Fine. Good. Wonderful. I don't care what standards the government sets, YOU need to take responsibility to learn about gun safety. Learn how and when to shoot. Don't be a hot-head. If you carry concealed, you better be a darn good shot if you ever pull it out in a public place. Chances are there are a lot more innocents around.
"Rights" are one side of the coin of liberty—the other side is responsibility.
We live in a culture that accepts very little responsibility for themselves. That is true from the homeless with no house to the hustlers in the White House.
In case you can't tell, I am admittedly too Republican (in principle) to be Libertarian, and too Libertarian to be Republican.
Booze vs. drugs, it's kind of like bullets have killed more than nukes, so nukes should be legal, too. Also, booze and fast food cannot alter the mind like some drugs, apples/oranges.
Some - not all - drugs/classes of drugs are just too addictive/powerful. Pot, not so much, more akin to booze, but I've seen a few of people lose their minds over meth. Leads to crime (we pay for it through insurance - assuming we're not dead b/c of it), high costs in health care they aren't paying for (we do through taxes), etc.
Places where it's legal are socialistic countries, mostly in the EU. They have universal health care, also forced on everyone. It's all unsustainable.
@12:38, Here is the thing. The negative consequences of most of these things which directly impinge upon people are already illegal ie robbery, assualt, theft, etc. Most significantly having freedom means having the freedom to make stupid choices. Choosing life partners irresponsibly, eating 4 McDonalds double cheeseburgers and 2 fries in a sitting, drinking a whole bottle of booze, putting a weekend trip to Mexico on your credit card, etc are all bad choices. When our bad choices cause social consequences we pay for them. If for example I turned into a skirt chasing cokehead I would quickly be divorces. Criminal acts are already illegal anyway, doesn't matter if you are high/ drunk/ on drugs when you commit them.
@E.Burke, I agree. You have the right to think gay marriage is wrong and say so unless it is in a threatening or harassing way. The Church of the Holy Visa tv preachers have the right to say gays are going to hell and need to repent by calling and donating. I don't think we should subsidize gay marriage any more than we do strait marriage.
When it comes to smoking in government buildings I think it should not be allowed. Private businesses, clubs and residences should be able to make their own choices to what they want and think will suit their businesses best. Let the free market do its thing.
Drugs certainly affect people for the negative which is why most people don't use them. I am not saying they are desirable or a positive thing, just that individuals should have freedom of choice. The world would probably be a better place if big mac's, extra large fries and cheap liquor were not around but again, freedom of choice.
Don't feel like talking about abortion again.
As for porn I think on drugs, seriously dysfunctional with childhood drama is more accurate than forced, at least in America.
Drunk driving is an interesting liberterian debate now that you mention it. Had a discussion about it some time ago.
I agree with responsability and that folks should face the consequences of their decisions good or bad. Typically they do face the consequences.
-TOR
Anon 12:38, Just because the first-order participants might not be "harmed" does not mean that there aren't grevious effects further down the chain. We would do well to consider them before haphazardly permitting a behavior.
Who do you suggest be granted the power to decide which behaviors are acceptable? Remember, we're talking about behaviors in which no one else is harmed, such as smoking crack, watching porn or shooting up heroin.
Also remember we've seen what happens when such activities are prohibited by some level of government. Criminal enterprises ALWAYS emerge, and government always grows to fight the criminality.
Funny how it always works out that way, huh?
@ Suburban Survivalist, Don't get me wrong, I'm not pushing coke, crack, meth or heroine as a lifestyle choice. Hard drugs are very bad and I don't think any rational person would argue that point.
What I am saying is that I do not believe the state has the right to tell me I can't do something I want to do which doesn't directly harm (not possible/ probable second and third order effects) someone else. Freedom means I have the right to make stupid self destructive decisions as well as great productive ones.
Chief Instructor may have hit the nail on the head with his question. "Who do you suggest be granted the power to decide which behaviors are acceptable?".
Aside from conceptual freedom as a reason to decriminalize all drugs the utter failure of prohibition two is a very good reason. Do you honestly think anyone who wants drugs now isn't getting them because they are illegal? Do you honestly think significant numbers of people who aren't using hard drugs now would choose to use them?
As for the "cost to the taxpayers" argument. Simple solution, we stop subsidizing the behavior. Health care is a whole different discussion. I feel compelled to mention that we can't afford the enforcement of laws we have banning drugs now.
We probably will not agree on this but that is OK. Have a nice day.
@ Chief, Well said.
-TOR
I get the point, But.....
A partial birth abortion is where labor is induced when the baby is half in with its head out, they crush his scull with large forceps. If you have ever seen a baby born it should difficult to envision crushing its head half way out. A normal abortion of 'blending' the fetus baby then sucking it out with a small vacuum only seems OK because one is more detached since they cant see the blending up front. But both methods are callus and it would seem to constitute premeditated murder when considering it is a human and it is premeditated act. Both are the usual methods in use today.
The comments on the drugs, doing drugs in itself is not harming another. If they do something as a result of doing drugs that's another issue. Also if drugs are so harmful that a person is void of their will to choose because of addiction. Making a law prohibiting it wont make a difference. The war on drugs is a farce, and a cash cow for the agencies receiving money from it. Also countries like Mexico get huge amounts of money from us to wage war on drugs. I doubt they are spending there anti drug allowance wisely.
PS I stole the pic from you
If they do something as a result of doing drugs that's another issue.
Well, when you've had your place broken into and ransacked by meth addicts looking for anything they can steal to pawn and get more cash, let me know if that changes your mind. A secondary consequence, but not unexpected, it plays out all the time even now.
Making a law prohibiting it wont make a difference.
That's debatable, but another issue is that legalization of something legitimizes it for many (e.g. it's legal so it's not wrong). More will do it, which leads to...
Also if drugs are so harmful that a person is void of their will to choose because of addiction.
Some classes of drugs are that way, just too addictive. If legal (and therefore legitimate), many more would be exposed to them.
This is can be an endless argument. I don't see the U.S. leaning that far left or Libertarian any time soon, so I don't expect the status quo to change much.
Suburban,
You have inadvertently made my point. Drugs and burglary are both illegal but they both happen regularly.
Proclaiming a war on drugs and giving Mexico millions to combat it when the Mexican government and the cartel are in the same circle is only subsiding drug activity.
In the grand scheme of libertarianism the state is supreme. The Federal Gov has no authority to pass drug laws. The States do.
As for the burglary a better law, would give residences a green light to kill when they perceived a threat any time. Also giving them blanket immunity from civil and criminal action......If it were legal to shoot them and place the pile of crap on the curb, said pile of crap would likely weigh his options carefully.
Buck,
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on what points have been made.
Yeah, it sounds great and I would like to shoot anyone robbing me. However, laws often have unintended consequences. In the old days - in Europe, Asia and even the U.S. - when the punishment for theft was the same for murder (hanging, beheading, whatever), robbers would more often than in modern times kill the victims as if they were caught, the punishment would be the same, so why leave a potential witness.
Post a Comment