For Libertarian leaning folks

[YoursTruly]

How does something come to belong to someone in the first place? Explain that process.

Are you stupid?

 

[dblack]

Created by laws. Why? To hold them accountable.
None the less, their customers could still use it, abuse is and allow access to it to their children. They could also drive while on that crap. There's a lot of bad decisions can are made while someone is stoned.

So, by all the arguments you're presenting here - you must think alcohol should be illegal as well. Right?

On their own free time, with their own honest money. But as much as you're trying to make this about responsible drug users, I'm going to keep bringing it back to those irresponsible loser druggies, and the victims they create. That's what this is all about anyways. So I'm not sure why you keep trying to tie it in with the good.

I'm not. I keep agreeing with you that anyone who victimizes others should be prosecuted. But you keep pretending otherwise. I'm not objecting to holding druggie criminals accountable. I'm objecting to pretending that all druggies are criminals.

 

[Curried Goats]

Are you stupid?

Explain it. Isn't taking possession of something the same thing as keeping people from it? Let's say we're in a brand new world without property and in the middle of this land is an apple tree. How does it come to be yours without force?

 

[dblack]

Sorry, I should be clearer, a right to property is a legal fiction. Survival is instinctual. This requires the acquisition and possession of resources. The notion of an inalienable right to property is merely a libertarians attempt to justify using force to keep others from resources they've claimed as their own. I understand the natural impulse to do this, I don't believe, intellectually, that this infers on you some mystical right to do it. To Libertarians, force is only justified in self defense but that wouldn't cover the right to use force to keep people off land or away from resources if there wasn't, first, some mystical right to it.

The reality is the right to property is entirely made up. Starting from the erroneous belief that people have an inalienable right to property leads us to the ridiculous conclusion of allowing the existence of billionaires and soon trillionaires and individuals who have legal ownership over a good portion of the earth's natural resources.

There's nothing mystical about it. You're right, it's entirely made up. It's one answer to the question: "How do we assign control over resources?". The libertarian ideal holds that this power is best distributed via a free market, where those who use resources wisely gain more control, and those who squander them lose out.

Another answer to the question is to assign such power "democratically", which is, I believe, the goal of socialism. Equally made up.

I'm a fan of the free market approach, for reasons I'm sure you've heard before, so I won't go over them unless you're just curious.

 

[YoursTruly]

Explain it. Isn't taking possession of something the same thing as keeping people from it? Let's say we're in a brand new world without property and in the middle of this land is an apple tree. How does it come to be yours without force?

How is buying or trading for something "force?"

 

[YoursTruly]

So, by all the arguments you're presenting here - you must think alcohol should be illegal as well. Right?

Yes. There's been hundreds of billions of people killed because of alcohol. And a lot of those were innocent victims.

If I'm in charge of the justice system, I'm not going to jack with those who do it responsibly. But I'm coming down hard and heavy on a MF that's not. Like 20yr in prison if you have a wreck while DUI (2nd offence). The death penalty if you kill someone while drunk.

Innocent lives are at stake when it comes to anything that adversely affects the brains ability to make a rational decision. Drugs & booze........ There's not any real difference.

I'm not. I keep agreeing with you that anyone who victimizes others should be prosecuted. But you keep pretending otherwise. I'm not objecting to holding druggie criminals accountable. I'm objecting to pretending that all druggies are criminals.

The drugs themselves that do harm to people. Either directly or indirectly.

 

[YoursTruly]

If I had not been drunk that one time, I would not have backed into that river.

 

[YoursTruly]

Overview. Every day, about 37 people in the United States die in drunk-driving crashes — that's one person every 39 minutes. In 2021, 13,384 people died in alcohol-impaired driving traffic deaths

13, 384 people dying just from drunk driving accidents per year should be enough of a reason. If it's not, then how about I tack on all the other deaths that stem from drunks?

I don't get how a society can disregard so many innocent lives, all for the sake of things that alter the mind. Is life so bad for them that have to take drugs or booze to escape it? And injure or kill innocent people?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I try not to lean.

I do NOT want to be in the position of needing life alert.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes. There's been hundreds of billions of people killed because of alcohol. And a lot of those were innocent victims.

If I'm in charge of the justice system, I'm not going to jack with those who do it responsibly. But I'm coming down hard and heavy on a MF that's not. Like 20yr in prison if you have a wreck while DUI (2nd offence). The death penalty if you kill someone while drunk.

Innocent lives are at stake when it comes to anything that adversely affects the brains ability to make a rational decision. Drugs & booze........ There's not any real difference.


The drugs themselves that do harm to people. Either directly or indirectly.

Hundreds of billions have been killed because of alcohol, huh? Do tell.

 

[YoursTruly]

Hundreds of billions have been killed because of alcohol, huh? Do tell.

DUI, the innocent victims of DUI, diseases related to alcohol, drunken brawls and shoot outs, suicides from alcoholics, accidents like falling off a cliff or drowning while drunk. The list is almost endless.

Hundreds billions was off the cuff. But this is just a 1 yr stat.

Excessive alcohol use was responsible for about 178,000 deaths in the United States each year during 2020–2021.
Go back a few decades and you'll certainly be in the millions.

 

[Montrovant]

DUI, the innocent victims of DUI, diseases related to alcohol, drunken brawls and shoot outs, suicides from alcoholics, accidents like falling off a cliff or drowning while drunk. The list is almost endless.

Hundreds billions was off the cuff. But this is just a 1 yr stat.

Excessive alcohol use was responsible for about 178,000 deaths in the United States each year during 2020–2021.
Go back a few decades and you'll certainly be in the millions.

Millions, sure. The most recent estimate I’ve seen for the total number of people who have ever lived is 117 billion, though, so I’m pretty sure hundreds of billions haven’t been killed by alcohol

 

[Redheaded Stranger]

Disagree.

Both were authentic fiscal conservatives with libertarian leanings.

They were not fans of W.

And that's pretty much the definition of "RINO" today, a W apologist....

ok sorry

 

[Redheaded Stranger]

I'm a socialist libertarian. I have no problems with "left" leaning libertarians.

Look, elements of socialism will exist, whether you like it or not. We've always had a balance of socialism and capitalism.

Frankly, I am annoyed that so many "fiscal conservatives" waste their time attacking things like drag queen story hour. It's not my thing, but attacking is wasted energy. Don't like it? don't go to the library. Live and let live.

The Sage of Main Street
I disagree with your disagree

 

[Natural Citizen]

It's a European thing. Has approximately nothing to do with US libertarianism.

Libertarianism does actually permit for voluntary socialism.

Unfortunately, socialists do not and will not ever support the Individual's choice to opt out.

Which is why division itself is so important. The very survival of the cause of Individual liberty itself depends on this division.


Relevant learning...

 

[Curried Goats]

There's nothing mystical about it. You're right, it's entirely made up. It's one answer to the question: "How do we assign control over resources?". The libertarian ideal holds that this power is best distributed via a free market, where those who use resources wisely gain more control, and those who squander them lose out.

Except that's not how resources or power are distributed in a free market. Property and power come before utility. I can't mine this rock for Iron to make useful things out of unless I own the mountain. What comes first is the selfish acquiring of land by force that resources occupy, in order to prevent other people's access to it.

Another answer to the question is to assign such power "democratically", which is, I believe, the goal of socialism. Equally made up.

Or, to acknowledge that ownership and property are a function of government and not an inalienable right that existed before government so we can think of it in its proper context.

I'm a fan of the free market approach, for reasons I'm sure you've heard before, so I won't go over them unless you're just curious.

I'm curious how one aquires ownership of property to mine for resources without the use of force. Force, in this instance, being used to prevent access to this land and resource by others.

 

[Curried Goats]

How is buying or trading for something "force?"

I asked you a more basic question before this. In a new world without property (imagine an open field with an apple tree in the middle) how does one person come to own that apple tree?

 

[YoursTruly]

I asked you a more basic question before this. In a new world without property (imagine an open field with an apple tree in the middle) how does one person come to own that apple tree?

You asked me some sort of bait question. And I'm not hungry.

 

[Curried Goats]

You asked me some sort of bait question. And I'm not hungry.

It's not a bait question, it's a fundament question about the nature of property. But it's okay. I didn't really expect you to have a an interesting answer. Maybe dblack will.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The defense of civil liberties is one of the things that differentiates the LP from the duopoly.

Liberty Without Responsibility