• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CDC: Drug overdoses hit new record

Lursa said:
Same place SCOTUS did when it decided Jim Crow laws were illegal.
Click to expand...

Don't you think there is a significant difference between SCOTUS declaring an inanimate law unconstitutional, and declaring that a citizen may not possess or consume certain plant products?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Black markets are created by the legislative process bringing prohibition. We see that in play today, and we saw it even better with our experience a century ago with the Volstead Act.

Decriminalization, however one chooses to define that term, without sales is a certain recipe for disaster. How can a substance be "decriminalized" if it is not possible to buy it? It's rather a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.

Milton Friedman has written much about it, as have other classical economists.

An excellent book on the subject is that written by Mark Thornton in 1991 at the University of Utah Press. At the time, Thornton was an economics professor at Auburn University. The title is "The Economics of Prohibition" and is well worth reading.
Click to expand...

It affects sales. Does decriminalization mean no (non-commercial) development and sales?

So with less risk, prices come down. Alot of the criminal motivations are removed (not all).

I am interested in the book tho, because the specifics around alcohol Prohibition were fascinating and not black and white. I realize there are unintended consequences.

EDIT: hey it's available for Kindle for $2.80, so I grabbed it! Thanks.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Don't you think there is a significant difference between SCOTUS declaring an inanimate law unconstitutional, and declaring that a citizen may not possess or consume certain plant products?
Click to expand...

WIth a more specific question, yes, but like with other things, we try to balance rights for the overall good of society.

I have always been against most drug prohibitions. But I have also read reasons why unfettered drug use can be exceedingly destructive to society overall. There is a good account of this about in Russia after the collapse of communism. Here's a good book for that: by Laurie Garrett, "Betrayal of Trust."

IMO, equal rights and civil rights laws are the best example however, of balancing rights for the overall good of society.
 
Lursa said:
The whole 'initiate force' thing tells me not to bother with an answer.

SCOTUS only interprets the Constitution. It doesnt make the laws.
Click to expand...

You chastise me for giving what you consider a non-answer to someone else, yet you refuse to answer my simple, direct question to you.

Side trivia question: Where did SCOTUS get the "authority" you allude to, to interpret the Constitution? A: They gave it to themselves (Marbury vs. Madison, 1803). The constitution never enumerated that authority to them.

This is indicative of all "authority". None is legitimate, and all of it is an illusion. It comes down to someone just giving it to themselves out of thin air. The reason you will not answer the question of where you get the authority to initiate force, is that you are intelligent enough to see where this was going.

If the government gets it's authority from you, where did you get it? If you don't have that authority to begin with, how can you give it to the government? If you do have the authority, don't I as well? Would you tolerate me using my authority to initiate force against you? No. Why should I tolerate it when you do it to me? You see the paradox.
 
Anarchon said:
You chastise me for giving what you consider a non-answer to someone else, yet you refuse to answer my simple, direct question to you.
Click to expand...

I told you, clearly.

Yours was too broad and your attitude regarding it quite clear from your phrasing.
 
Anarchon said:
You chastise me for giving what you consider a non-answer to someone else, yet you refuse to answer my simple, direct question to you.

Side trivia question: Where did SCOTUS get the "authority" you allude to, to interpret the Constitution? A: They gave it to themselves (Marbury vs. Madison, 1803). The constitution never enumerated that authority to them.
Click to expand...
Side trivia answer! Judicial review long predated the Constitution, was mentioned in the Federalist Papers, was not objected to after several early rulings, and no one has ever actually tried to stop the SCOTUS from performing that function.

Oh, and there's a lot about the balance of powers that wasn't explicitly written in the Constitution. The authors, as new as the world was to constitutions, knew that the earliest presidents (especially the first) would set numerous critical precedents when it came to the balance of powers. E.g. Washington deliberately avoided many of the trappings of a monarch during his term, including voluntarily limiting himself to 2 terms (a norm that stood for well over 100 years).


This is indicative of all "authority". None is legitimate, and all of it is an illusion. It comes down to someone just giving it to themselves out of thin air.
Click to expand...
Or....

Democratic governments are legitimized by the citizens, who accept their authority. The overwhelming majority of Americans view the various layers of government as legitimate, even when they are mad that they didn't get their way.

You are welcome to view this authority as an "illusion." Don't be surprised, though, if the IRS uses its non-illusory authority to compel you to pay your taxes, or if the local police department uses its non-illusory authority to compel you to obey stop signs, or if the zoning board uses its non-illusory authority to stop you from building a 5-story nightclub in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood.

If you don't consent to be governed, a legitimate government typically won't force you stay.


If the government gets it's authority from you, where did you get it?
Click to expand...
Citizens informally grant the government its authority, including a near-total monopoly on the use of force and power to collect taxes, in exchange for providing citizens common goods like protection, courts, public roads, public parks and more.

Citizens also generally have the right and power to hold governments accountable for their actions.

Some would argue that citizens have the right to change a government, including via violence, if the government genuinely fails to perform its job properly.

I guess someone missed a critical day during 9th grade civics class :mrgreen:

Similar dynamics apply in non-democratic governments, by the way. A non-democratic leader who loses the favor of the public could wind up facing an angry mob or waves of protests.


If the government gets it's authority from you, where did you get it?
Click to expand...
Some might say that the autonomy of an individual is axiomatic. Others may suggest that you aren't transferring anything at all, rather you are (informally) consenting to be governed.


Would you tolerate me using my authority to initiate force against you?
Click to expand...
If I did not consent to be governed by you (an individual citizen), then you don't have any legitimate authority over me. See how that works?


Why should I tolerate it when you do it to me?
Click to expand...
No one is making you stay in the country where you were born. Feel free to find somewhere beyond the authority of any government. Going 30 miles offshore ought to do the trick.
 
Visbek said:
Side trivia answer! Judicial review long predated the Constitution, was mentioned in the Federalist Papers, was not objected to after several early rulings, and no one has ever actually tried to stop the SCOTUS from performing that function.

Oh, and there's a lot about the balance of powers that wasn't explicitly written in the Constitution. The authors, as new as the world was to constitutions, knew that the earliest presidents (especially the first) would set numerous critical precedents when it came to the balance of powers. E.g. Washington deliberately avoided many of the trappings of a monarch during his term, including voluntarily limiting himself to 2 terms (a norm that stood for well over 100 years).



Or....

Democratic governments are legitimized by the citizens, who accept their authority. The overwhelming majority of Americans view the various layers of government as legitimate, even when they are mad that they didn't get their way.

You are welcome to view this authority as an "illusion." Don't be surprised, though, if the IRS uses its non-illusory authority to compel you to pay your taxes, or if the local police department uses its non-illusory authority to compel you to obey stop signs, or if the zoning board uses its non-illusory authority to stop you from building a 5-story nightclub in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood.

If you don't consent to be governed, a legitimate government typically won't force you stay.



Citizens informally grant the government its authority, including a near-total monopoly on the use of force and power to collect taxes, in exchange for providing citizens common goods like protection, courts, public roads, public parks and more.

Citizens also generally have the right and power to hold governments accountable for their actions.

Some would argue that citizens have the right to change a government, including via violence, if the government genuinely fails to perform its job properly.

I guess someone missed a critical day during 9th grade civics class :mrgreen:

Similar dynamics apply in non-democratic governments, by the way. A non-democratic leader who loses the favor of the public could wind up facing an angry mob or waves of protests.



Some might say that the autonomy of an individual is axiomatic. Others may suggest that you aren't transferring anything at all, rather you are (informally) consenting to be governed.



If I did not consent to be governed by you (an individual citizen), then you don't have any legitimate authority over me. See how that works?



No one is making you stay in the country where you were born. Feel free to find somewhere beyond the authority of any government. Going 30 miles offshore ought to do the trick.
Click to expand...

You still haven't answered the question of where you get the authority over others that you give to the government. You've essentially said 3 things...

1. Consent is implied

The social contract is anything but, because I didn't sign it. I do not consent. Your assuming that I do, or anyone else does, does not make it so.

2. The majority rules.

This is not a moral philosophy. It's the equivalent of might-makes-right.

3. If you don't like it, leave

I could say the same to you. Why must I be the one to leave?

The government's authority is not not legitimate. It rests on faulty premises. Therefore it is not real and is illusory. The force you mention is very real. But those are different things. I learned the same things you did in the childhood civics classes you keep alluding to. That we were all forcibly indoctrinated at such young ages should be one clue as to its veracity. I purposefully unlearned them because they were incoherent.
 
Anarchon said:
You still haven't answered the question of where you get the authority over others that you give to the government.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have. Individuals informally consent to the authority. If you don't consent, you have options.


1. Consent is implied

The social contract is anything but, because I didn't sign it. I do not consent. Your assuming that I do, or anyone else does, does not make it so.
Click to expand...
"Consent of the governed" is not the same thing as "social contract theory." I did not refer to contract theory at all. Plus, it's not a literal contract. It's just a metaphor. Maybe you "unlearned" a bit too much.

Anyway. Yes, it's informal, and implied by the fact that you haven't parked your yacht 30 miles offshore, or declared yourself in rebellion against the state.


2. The majority rules.

This is not a moral philosophy. It's the equivalent of might-makes-right.
Click to expand...
I said no such thing. Many governments include mechanisms to guarantee protections and rights to political minorities. Minorities can try to overthrow governments that they see as illegitimate. Stop with the straw man arguments.


3. If you don't like it, leave

I could say the same to you. Why must I be the one to leave?
Click to expand...
You could definitely say the same to me, but that would be silly. I'm not the one rejecting the legitimacy of the government, so there's no reason for me to leave. By staying in a nation, I'm informally consenting to participate in its civic and governmental structure, and classify the government as legitimate.

If you do not consent, again: You have options. You can start a violent rebellion (not recommended), or a radical non-violent political movement to overthrow the government (yes that happens, and succeeds more often than violent uprisings btw), or you can leave.

You could just whine about it too, but it's hard to see how paying your taxes and obeying traffic controls and so on proves you don't see the government as legitimate. That's like saying "I'll sign this lease, and pay my rent on time, and will follow the landlord's rules, and not paint without the landlord's permission, and I'm not going to sue him, but I don't see his claim to this property as legitimate!"


The government's authority is not not legitimate. It rests on faulty premises. Therefore it is not real and is illusory.
Click to expand...
Unless it is, because the citizens legitimize it pretty much every day, and that makes it real.

And yes, social constructs can be real. The government's authority is real in the same way that the law is real, that corporations are real, that non-profit groups are real. Read up on social ontology one of these days.
 
Lursa said:
It affects sales. Does decriminalization mean no (non-commercial) development and sales?

So with less risk, prices come down. Alot of the criminal motivations are removed (not all).

I am interested in the book tho, because the specifics around alcohol Prohibition were fascinating and not black and white. I realize there are unintended consequences.

EDIT: hey it's available for Kindle for $2.80, so I grabbed it! Thanks.
Click to expand...

I don't have a Kindle, but I'm pleased to hear his book is available there! I hope you will like it.

Regarding the term "decriminalization", you are the first person who has ever even responded to any question about the term. I don't use it, because it is vague. I have asked many over the years how they define the term, and you are the first person to even attempt to respond. Many throw the term around but will not attempt to define it.

I use the term "legalize", and I define that as repeal of the prohibition, legalizing and licensing the production, sale, tax, and of course personal possession and use.

Some say the 2 terms are not exactly the same, and I always ask how they differ.

Another economist who has written well about the harms of prohibition is Mr. Becker, I think Gary. Years ago he used to write about it in I think Business News.

And of course Milton Friedman the Nobel Economist, has written extensively on the subject.

I would be curious if Kindle also carries an old book, out of print many years ago, called LICIT & ILLICIT DRUGS, published by Consumers Union in 1972. That is really "the bible" on the futility of drug prohibition. Very informative. I have an old paper copy of the book.
 
Visbek said:
Yes, I have. Individuals informally consent to the authority. If you don't consent, you have options.



"Consent of the governed" is not the same thing as "social contract theory." I did not refer to contract theory at all. Plus, it's not a literal contract. It's just a metaphor. Maybe you "unlearned" a bit too much.

Anyway. Yes, it's informal, and implied by the fact that you haven't parked your yacht 30 miles offshore, or declared yourself in rebellion against the state.



I said no such thing. Many governments include mechanisms to guarantee protections and rights to political minorities. Minorities can try to overthrow governments that they see as illegitimate. Stop with the straw man arguments.



You could definitely say the same to me, but that would be silly. I'm not the one rejecting the legitimacy of the government, so there's no reason for me to leave. By staying in a nation, I'm informally consenting to participate in its civic and governmental structure, and classify the government as legitimate.

If you do not consent, again: You have options. You can start a violent rebellion (not recommended), or a radical non-violent political movement to overthrow the government (yes that happens, and succeeds more often than violent uprisings btw), or you can leave.

You could just whine about it too, but it's hard to see how paying your taxes and obeying traffic controls and so on proves you don't see the government as legitimate. That's like saying "I'll sign this lease, and pay my rent on time, and will follow the landlord's rules, and not paint without the landlord's permission, and I'm not going to sue him, but I don't see his claim to this property as legitimate!"



Unless it is, because the citizens legitimize it pretty much every day, and that makes it real.

And yes, social constructs can be real. The government's authority is real in the same way that the law is real, that corporations are real, that non-profit groups are real. Read up on social ontology one of these days.
Click to expand...

You can consent to let the government have you. You cannot consent to let the government have me or any other third party. So again, where did you get this authority over me that you gave your government?

And, you are espousing majority rule. That is the source of your governments' alleged legitimacy.

Democratic governments are legitimized by the citizens, who accept their authority. The overwhelming majority of Americans view the various layers of government as legitimate, even when they are mad that they didn't get their way.
Click to expand...

Because you and your ilk form a nation, you say I must leave it. What of my nation of one? What of the smaller nation of people that do not agree, that do not consent? Are they not legitimate because yours has more numbers? You are not escaping this point.
 
Anarchon said:
You can consent to let the government have you. You cannot consent to let the government have me or any other third party. So again, where did you get this authority over me that you gave your government?
Click to expand...
I've already answered this question. To repeat: If you do not consent to be governed, you have options. If you do not exercise any of those options, then like it or not, you have informally consented.


Because you and your ilk form a nation, you say I must leave it. What of my nation of one? What of the smaller nation of people that do not agree, that do not consent? Are they not legitimate because yours has more numbers? You are not escaping this point.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to escape it. I'm answering it. Again, if you do not believe that the government is legitimate:

1) You can engage in violent resistance against the government
2) You can engage in non-violent resistance against the government
3) You can attempt to reform the government via violence
4) You can attempt to reform the government non-violently
5) You can leave

If you do none of the above, then I can only conclude that you aren't taking your own criticisms seriously.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I don't have a Kindle, but I'm pleased to hear his book is available there! I hope you will like it.

Regarding the term "decriminalization", you are the first person who has ever even responded to any question about the term. I don't use it, because it is vague. I have asked many over the years how they define the term, and you are the first person to even attempt to respond. Many throw the term around but will not attempt to define it.

I use the term "legalize", and I define that as repeal of the prohibition, legalizing and licensing the production, sale, tax, and of course personal possession and use.

Some say the 2 terms are not exactly the same, and I always ask how they differ.

Another economist who has written well about the harms of prohibition is Mr. Becker, I think Gary. Years ago he used to write about it in I think Business News.

And of course Milton Friedman the Nobel Economist, has written extensively on the subject.

I would be curious if Kindle also carries an old book, out of print many years ago, called LICIT & ILLICIT DRUGS, published by Consumers Union in 1972. That is really "the bible" on the futility of drug prohibition. Very informative. I have an old paper copy of the book.
Click to expand...

I've had decriminalization explained to me before but I admit I forget the difference. It had it's drawbacks, that I remember. Can you give me a Reader's Digest definition?
 
Lursa said:
I've had decriminalization explained to me before but I admit I forget the difference. It had it's drawbacks, that I remember. Can you give me a Reader's Digest definition?
Click to expand...

I've never understood the difference between the 2, even just in theory. I think some people are afraid of the word "legalize", for whatever reason. After years of discussions and questions, you are the first to even go this far in trying to define it.

If I had to guess, they say that decriminalize means to allow possession and use, but not sales. To me that is an irrational notion, because that is effectively prohibition. Not counting pot, of course, because a user can grow his own in many cases.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I've never understood the difference between the 2, even just in theory. I think some people are afraid of the word "legalize", for whatever reason. After years of discussions and questions, you are the first to even go this far in trying to define it.

If I had to guess, they say that decriminalize means to allow possession and use, but not sales. To me that is an irrational notion, because that is effectively prohibition. Not counting pot, of course, because a user can grow his own in many cases.
Click to expand...

Actually the distinction had to do with the legal repercussions. And you point out one drawback because of course people still do manage to procure it and the blackmarket sales are not done away with. It's more of an 'expedient' solution with regards to individuals and court/prison costs.
 
Visbek said:
I've already answered this question. To repeat: If you do not consent to be governed, you have options. If you do not exercise any of those options, then like it or not, you have informally consented.



I'm not trying to escape it. I'm answering it. Again, if you do not believe that the government is legitimate:

1) You can engage in violent resistance against the government
2) You can engage in non-violent resistance against the government
3) You can attempt to reform the government via violence
4) You can attempt to reform the government non-violently
5) You can leave

If you do none of the above, then I can only conclude that you aren't taking your own criticisms seriously.
Click to expand...

You must choose to eat feces or drink urine; or else be castrated. If you do not choose, does that imply that you've consented to be castrated?
 
Thoreau72 said:
I've never understood the difference between the 2, even just in theory. I think some people are afraid of the word "legalize", for whatever reason. After years of discussions and questions, you are the first to even go this far in trying to define it.

If I had to guess, they say that decriminalize means to allow possession and use, but not sales. To me that is an irrational notion, because that is effectively prohibition. Not counting pot, of course, because a user can grow his own in many cases.
Click to expand...

Decriminalizing typically means you can't be jailed or imprisoned for the offense. You could, however, pay a fine, similar to a traffic ticket.
 
Anarchon said:
You must choose to eat feces or drink urine; or else be castrated. If you do not choose, does that imply that you've consented to be castrated?
Click to expand...
Wow, such an adult response :roll:

Yes, it is such a shame that the entire planet cannot be altered to suit your own personal preferences. We are all so sad that you can't get your way all the time.

Back in the real world: You and I and everyone else has to play the hand we're dealt. No one ever promised you that your available options would be easy or comfortable or fun. No one is obligated to let you do whatever you want, whenever you want, because you proclaim that "I never agreed to this!"

You are living in a society. You are benefitting from living in that society, whether you care to admit it or not. No one owes you a "perfect world" built to your specifications. So if you genuinely believe that the government under which you live is not legitimate, then it is your responsibility to exercise one of your options.
 
Visbek said:
Wow, such an adult response :roll:

Yes, it is such a shame that the entire planet cannot be altered to suit your own personal preferences. We are all so sad that you can't get your way all the time.



Back in the real world: You and I and everyone else has to play the hand we're dealt. No one ever promised you that your available options would be easy or comfortable or fun. No one is obligated to let you do whatever you want, whenever you want, because you proclaim that "I never agreed to this!"

You are living in a society. You are benefitting from living in that society, whether you care to admit it or not. No one owes you a "perfect world" built to your specifications. So if you genuinely believe that the government under which you live is not legitimate, then it is your responsibility to exercise one of your options.
Click to expand...

I ask only that force not be initiated against me. I don't demand that anyone else conform to my worldview, other than to leave me alone. Why is that so much to ask?

Of course, we don't live in a perfect world. But, isn't it best to understand which goal is best, even if you are not able to achieve it? Doesn't this let a person take their lives in a good direction, even if you don't reach your destination?

It won't happen overnight. But, eventually, man could come to understand that political slavery is just as wrong as chattel slavery was, and cast off those chains as well.
 
Anarchon said:
I ask only that force not be initiated against me. I don't demand that anyone else conform to my worldview, other than to leave me alone. Why is that so much to ask?
Click to expand...
1) That depends entirely on how you define "force," and which uses are legitimate.

For example, consider traffic laws. These operate primarily as norms; drivers in the US know that they are supposed to drive on the right side of the road; pass on the left; stop at red lights, and so forth. People comply because it's in their own interest, and because it's expected of them, not because they will be shot on sight by police if they violate traffic controls. Very little force is ever needed to enforce traffic laws, and in most (albeit not all) cases it is measured, appropriate, justified and legitimate. (E.g. police officers do not summarily execute drivers who break the speed limit by 10mph.) And yet, you imply that being subject to these laws is akin to slavery, which is an absurd claim.


2) You live in a society. Your actions affect other people, and unless you are literally living on the high seas and never contacting anyone for any reason, you rely on common goods and affect others. As a result, we all need some form of organization, and we need to contribute to common goods.


3) The concept of fairness is critical to a functional society, and part of that means people have to have a common framework for "what society considers fair." (It's not fair to subject people to rules, when they have no way to know what the rules are, let alone alter the rules.)

Without that framework, people have no concept of what is expected of them, how to behave, how to treat others. Even if they don't agree with those standards, at least they ought to know what they are, and have an opportunity to change them. Or, if those standards aren't met, they have to know what they are to hold people and institutions accountable to those standards.


Of course, we don't live in a perfect world. But, isn't it best to understand which goal is best, even if you are not able to achieve it? Doesn't this let a person take their lives in a good direction, even if you don't reach your destination?
Click to expand...
Nope.

Impossible standards are neither fair, nor ethical, nor practical. In fact, pursuing them can do more harm than good. E.g. if your ideal is a society with no government whatsoever, getting closer to that ideal could result in disruption, chaos, and all sorts of harm.

I might add that your ideal seems to be based on a deliberate refusal to accept any government as legitimate, no awareness of common goods, and no awareness that your actions can affect others. That doesn't sound like a "good direction" to me.


eventually, man could come to understand that political slavery is just as wrong as chattel slavery was, and cast off those chains as well.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's helpful... not

You are not in "political slavery" just because government exists. If you live in a democratic society, you have a huge range of options about your education, your work, how you spend your time, what you read, what you eat, whom you associate with, what you can say in public, your ability to modify or change the laws and representatives and government. I.e. you are taking all of these freedoms for granted, and your rhetoric indicates that you have no concept what actual slavery is like, let alone what life is like in an actual autocratic state. It's not impressive.
 
Visbek said:
1) That depends entirely on how you define "force," and which uses are legitimate.

For example, consider traffic laws. These operate primarily as norms; drivers in the US know that they are supposed to drive on the right side of the road; pass on the left; stop at red lights, and so forth. People comply because it's in their own interest, and because it's expected of them, not because they will be shot on sight by police if they violate traffic controls. Very little force is ever needed to enforce traffic laws, and in most (albeit not all) cases it is measured, appropriate, justified and legitimate. (E.g. police officers do not summarily execute drivers who break the speed limit by 10mph.) And yet, you imply that being subject to these laws is akin to slavery, which is an absurd claim.


2) You live in a society. Your actions affect other people, and unless you are literally living on the high seas and never contacting anyone for any reason, you rely on common goods and affect others. As a result, we all need some form of organization, and we need to contribute to common goods.


3) The concept of fairness is critical to a functional society, and part of that means people have to have a common framework for "what society considers fair." (It's not fair to subject people to rules, when they have no way to know what the rules are, let alone alter the rules.)

Without that framework, people have no concept of what is expected of them, how to behave, how to treat others. Even if they don't agree with those standards, at least they ought to know what they are, and have an opportunity to change them. Or, if those standards aren't met, they have to know what they are to hold people and institutions accountable to those standards.



Nope.

Impossible standards are neither fair, nor ethical, nor practical. In fact, pursuing them can do more harm than good. E.g. if your ideal is a society with no government whatsoever, getting closer to that ideal could result in disruption, chaos, and all sorts of harm.

I might add that your ideal seems to be based on a deliberate refusal to accept any government as legitimate, no awareness of common goods, and no awareness that your actions can affect others. That doesn't sound like a "good direction" to me.



Yeah, that's helpful... not

You are not in "political slavery" just because government exists. If you live in a democratic society, you have a huge range of options about your education, your work, how you spend your time, what you read, what you eat, whom you associate with, what you can say in public, your ability to modify or change the laws and representatives and government. I.e. you are taking all of these freedoms for granted, and your rhetoric indicates that you have no concept what actual slavery is like, let alone what life is like in an actual autocratic state. It's not impressive.
Click to expand...

I define force as violence against person or property. What is wrong with claiming that the initiation of force is immoral?

Also, you claim that I have no concept of what slavery is like. What would you call a situation where a man feels he can take from you the fruits of your labor, and force you to do as he wills, punishing you if you do not?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Wrong method kill the addicts and just follow the dealers.

No users no dealers
Click to expand...

There will always be users. There will always be dealers. The problem is that a “user” could be someone you have no idea is using until it is too late. Trust me. I know. Nobody realized I had issues until I brought them up. And the scary thing is that those issues can keep going after you finish taking them. Some people commit suicide and it looks like an OD. Others stop using opioids and go to heroin. Others just start drinking. And the big problem is is that doctors were told these were safe.

A lot of addicts are people who have poor coping mechanisms. They are a symptom of cultural problems. Especially surrounding seeking help. And of course I am excluding the partiers.
 
Anarchon said:
I define force as violence against person or property. What is wrong with claiming that the initiation of force is immoral?
Click to expand...
1) As already stated, most people in democratic societies don't have a literal gun to their head all day long, aren't anywhere near as restricted as you claim, and mostly abide by norms.

2) The state has all sorts of mechanisms to ensure that force is used in the interests of justice. They're not perfect (nothing is) but they do have all sorts of ways to protect political minorities, allow citizens to change the laws, protect the rights of citizens, hold authorities accountable, and so on.

3) Like it or not, the very rare use of force, and very common promulgation of norms, is required in order to maintain social order.

4) Yet again: If you don't think it is legitimate, you have options. Nothing you've said refutes the fact that you have options.


Also, you claim that I have no concept of what slavery is like. What would you call a situation where a man feels he can take from you the fruits of your labor, and force you to do as he wills, punishing you if you do not?
Click to expand...
If you are referring to a citizen in a democratic nation paying her taxes? Then I'd call your description "unacceptable hyperbole" and "an indicator that you have completely lost all perspective."

If you think I'm wrong, go spend a year in North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia.... Maybe that will give you a glimpse of what life is like in an autocracy.
 
Visbek said:
1) As already stated, most people in democratic societies don't have a literal gun to their head all day long, aren't anywhere near as restricted as you claim, and mostly abide by norms.

2) The state has all sorts of mechanisms to ensure that force is used in the interests of justice. They're not perfect (nothing is) but they do have all sorts of ways to protect political minorities, allow citizens to change the laws, protect the rights of citizens, hold authorities accountable, and so on.

3) Like it or not, the very rare use of force, and very common promulgation of norms, is required in order to maintain social order.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer the question.
4) Yet again: If you don't think it is legitimate, you have options. Nothing you've said refutes the fact that you have options.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep maintaining that you have the authority to give me options?

If you are referring to a citizen in a democratic nation paying her taxes? Then I'd call your description "unacceptable hyperbole" and "an indicator that you have completely lost all perspective."

If you think I'm wrong, go spend a year in North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia.... Maybe that will give you a glimpse of what life is like in an autocracy.
Click to expand...
Claiming a lesser evil doesn't mean it's not still evil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom