Gary Johnson Announces Run for President

[Two Thumbs]

I'll take anyone that's a fiscal conservative.

I aint' picky

But his stance on dope bothers me.

It's useless to legalise just pot.

One of his reasons was to keep people from killing each other over drug dealing. If we take out weed, they will keep killing for coke, heroine, etc.

make it all leagal and it all comes to an end.

 

[kwc57]

That Libertarianism is just a cloak for hedonism.

Actually it's a cloak for individual responsibility.

Yeah. Taking drugs sounds really responsible.

So you DO want to dictate what people can and can't do with their own money and bodies in the privacy of their own home? How statist of you. What party are you in again comrade?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Who says you don't? Why is the non-infringement on someone else's rights the definition of what is permitted?

Most libertarians would hold to natural rights theory, which is why we don't see laws against murder or theft as infringing on anybody's rights.

Yes. Even though they cannot describe what those rights are, where they came from, what they include or don't include and what happens when you violate them.
IOW they might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy.

Why can't we? Leonard Read put it succinctly as "Anything that's peaceful." In other words, you have the right to do anything you want, so long as it doesn't violate the rights of other people. These rights come from our creator if you're religious, or simply our humanity if you're secular. What happens when you violate them is obvious, you're punished.

Of course the United States was founded on the idea of the natural rights and the natural law, as espoused by John Locke, so I don't really see it as being all that radical of a notion, and certainly not comparable to the tooth fairy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That Libertarianism is just a cloak for hedonism.

Actually it's a cloak for individual responsibility.

Yeah. Taking drugs sounds really responsible.

Nobody said taking drugs was responsible, just that each individual is responsible for themselves and their own actions. If you want to take drugs fine, but if you end up harming yourself you know who to blame.

 

[The Rabbi]

Most libertarians would hold to natural rights theory, which is why we don't see laws against murder or theft as infringing on anybody's rights.

Yes. Even though they cannot describe what those rights are, where they came from, what they include or don't include and what happens when you violate them.
IOW they might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy.

Why can't we? Leonard Read put it succinctly as "Anything that's peaceful." In other words, you have the right to do anything you want, so long as it doesn't violate the rights of other people. These rights come from our creator if you're religious, or simply our humanity if you're secular. What happens when you violate them is obvious, you're punished.

Of course the United States was founded on the idea of the natural rights and the natural law, as espoused by John Locke, so I don't really see it as being all that radical of a notion, and certainly not comparable to the tooth fairy.

I dont know who Leonard Reed is or why I or anyone else should take him as an authority. But based on that violent self defense would be prohibited as well.
Where do rigths come from "the creator" or "our humanity"? How was this communicated? Where in the Bible or any other document claiming divine inspiration does it enumerate "natural rights"?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That Libertarianism is just a cloak for hedonism.

Actually it's a cloak for individual responsibility.

Yeah. Taking drugs sounds really responsible.

Do you drink?

Like I said, I don't do either, and that is my way of being responsible about it. I know people who do drink, and I consider them responsible because they drink responsibly. I also know people who use drugs responsibly. In fact, that is exactly what a doctor advises patients to do whenever he gives them a prescription. should we stop prescriptions for everyone because some people are irresponsible, or do you think it is actually possible to use drugs, even hard core addictive drugs like codeine, responsibly?

Taking drugs does not make you responsible, but it is possible to take drugs responsibly.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually it's a cloak for individual responsibility.

Yeah. Taking drugs sounds really responsible.

Do you drink?

Like I said, I don't do either, and that is my way of being responsible about it. I know people who do drink, and I consider them responsible because they drink responsibly. I also know people who use drugs responsibly. In fact, that is exactly what a doctor advises patients to do whenever he gives them a prescription. should we stop prescriptions for everyone because some people are irresponsible, or do you think it is actually possible to use drugs, even hard core addictive drugs like codeine, responsibly?

Taking drugs does not make you responsible, but it is possible to take drugs responsibly.

Yeah I do drink, actually. How is that relevant again?
But I don't climb into a car and drive around. That's stupid. And illegal. And it ought to be.
And conflating pharmaceuticals with recreational drugs is a sure sign of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[California Girl]

Eight years as Governor, 750 vetoes, a balanced budget, a budget surplus, etc... etc... is a thin resume?

i heard him on dylan rattigan's show today. he sounded interesting at first.


then he was asked about getting special interest money out of politics with some type of constitutional amendment (something i would actually support)...

and he punked out. said he was very comfortable with the electoral system.

same ole same ole.

Seriously? You dismiss him for one comment? Wow. Damn. It took me months of studying Obama before I wrote him off as unworthy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah. Taking drugs sounds really responsible.

Do you drink?

Like I said, I don't do either, and that is my way of being responsible about it. I know people who do drink, and I consider them responsible because they drink responsibly. I also know people who use drugs responsibly. In fact, that is exactly what a doctor advises patients to do whenever he gives them a prescription. should we stop prescriptions for everyone because some people are irresponsible, or do you think it is actually possible to use drugs, even hard core addictive drugs like codeine, responsibly?

Taking drugs does not make you responsible, but it is possible to take drugs responsibly.

Yeah I do drink, actually. How is that relevant again?
But I don't climb into a car and drive around. That's stupid. And illegal. And it ought to be.
And conflating pharmaceuticals with recreational drugs is a sure sign of intellectual dishonesty.

I see.

You think you can use your drug of choice responsibly, but think everyone else is too stupid to be able to do the same. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you drink?

Like I said, I don't do either, and that is my way of being responsible about it. I know people who do drink, and I consider them responsible because they drink responsibly. I also know people who use drugs responsibly. In fact, that is exactly what a doctor advises patients to do whenever he gives them a prescription. should we stop prescriptions for everyone because some people are irresponsible, or do you think it is actually possible to use drugs, even hard core addictive drugs like codeine, responsibly?

Taking drugs does not make you responsible, but it is possible to take drugs responsibly.

Yeah I do drink, actually. How is that relevant again?
But I don't climb into a car and drive around. That's stupid. And illegal. And it ought to be.
And conflating pharmaceuticals with recreational drugs is a sure sign of intellectual dishonesty.

I see.

You think you can use your drug of choice responsibly, but think everyone else is too stupid to be able to do the same. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

Talk about putting words in my mouth. If that isn't intellectually dishonest, I don't know what is.
I see that you cannot defend your beliefs and fall back on ad hominems and dishonesty.

 

[kwc57]

Do you drink?

Like I said, I don't do either, and that is my way of being responsible about it. I know people who do drink, and I consider them responsible because they drink responsibly. I also know people who use drugs responsibly. In fact, that is exactly what a doctor advises patients to do whenever he gives them a prescription. should we stop prescriptions for everyone because some people are irresponsible, or do you think it is actually possible to use drugs, even hard core addictive drugs like codeine, responsibly?

Taking drugs does not make you responsible, but it is possible to take drugs responsibly.

Yeah I do drink, actually. How is that relevant again?
But I don't climb into a car and drive around. That's stupid. And illegal. And it ought to be.
And conflating pharmaceuticals with recreational drugs is a sure sign of intellectual dishonesty.

I see.

You think you can use your drug of choice responsibly, but think everyone else is too stupid to be able to do the same. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

Like I said, he's a statist. His use of mind altering substances is AOK, but he wants to legislate their use by other people.....especially when it isn't his drug of choice.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes. Even though they cannot describe what those rights are, where they came from, what they include or don't include and what happens when you violate them.
IOW they might as well believe in the Tooth Fairy.

Why can't we? Leonard Read put it succinctly as "Anything that's peaceful." In other words, you have the right to do anything you want, so long as it doesn't violate the rights of other people. These rights come from our creator if you're religious, or simply our humanity if you're secular. What happens when you violate them is obvious, you're punished.

Of course the United States was founded on the idea of the natural rights and the natural law, as espoused by John Locke, so I don't really see it as being all that radical of a notion, and certainly not comparable to the tooth fairy.

I dont know who Leonard Reed is or why I or anyone else should take him as an authority. But based on that violent self defense would be prohibited as well.
Where do rigths come from "the creator" or "our humanity"? How was this communicated? Where in the Bible or any other document claiming divine inspiration does it enumerate "natural rights"?

Leonard Read was a libertarian who founded FEE, one of the longest standing libertarian organizations. So he's certainly an authority on libertarianism.

If you want to know about natural rights theory I suggest you read John Locke, who espoused it. Are you unaware that the Declaration of Independence was essentially Thomas Jefferson using Locke's ideas of natural rights?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah. Taking drugs sounds really responsible.

Do you drink?

Like I said, I don't do either, and that is my way of being responsible about it. I know people who do drink, and I consider them responsible because they drink responsibly. I also know people who use drugs responsibly. In fact, that is exactly what a doctor advises patients to do whenever he gives them a prescription. should we stop prescriptions for everyone because some people are irresponsible, or do you think it is actually possible to use drugs, even hard core addictive drugs like codeine, responsibly?

Taking drugs does not make you responsible, but it is possible to take drugs responsibly.

Yeah I do drink, actually. How is that relevant again?
But I don't climb into a car and drive around. That's stupid. And illegal. And it ought to be.
And conflating pharmaceuticals with recreational drugs is a sure sign of intellectual dishonesty.

Well I can say that drinking harms your body, as it's essentially a poison, and that no responsible person would do it. So should you be legally barred from doing so because it's irresponsible to drink in the first place? Should we throw you in prison for drinking or possessing alcohol?

 

[The Rabbi]

Why can't we? Leonard Read put it succinctly as "Anything that's peaceful." In other words, you have the right to do anything you want, so long as it doesn't violate the rights of other people. These rights come from our creator if you're religious, or simply our humanity if you're secular. What happens when you violate them is obvious, you're punished.

Of course the United States was founded on the idea of the natural rights and the natural law, as espoused by John Locke, so I don't really see it as being all that radical of a notion, and certainly not comparable to the tooth fairy.

I dont know who Leonard Reed is or why I or anyone else should take him as an authority. But based on that violent self defense would be prohibited as well.
Where do rigths come from "the creator" or "our humanity"? How was this communicated? Where in the Bible or any other document claiming divine inspiration does it enumerate "natural rights"?

Leonard Read was a libertarian who founded FEE, one of the longest standing libertarian organizations. So he's certainly an authority on libertarianism.

If you want to know about natural rights theory I suggest you read John Locke, who espoused it. Are you unaware that the Declaration of Independence was essentially Thomas Jefferson using Locke's ideas of natural rights?

That's called the "ipse dixit fallacy." It's a fallacy for a reason.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you drink?

Like I said, I don't do either, and that is my way of being responsible about it. I know people who do drink, and I consider them responsible because they drink responsibly. I also know people who use drugs responsibly. In fact, that is exactly what a doctor advises patients to do whenever he gives them a prescription. should we stop prescriptions for everyone because some people are irresponsible, or do you think it is actually possible to use drugs, even hard core addictive drugs like codeine, responsibly?

Taking drugs does not make you responsible, but it is possible to take drugs responsibly.

Yeah I do drink, actually. How is that relevant again?
But I don't climb into a car and drive around. That's stupid. And illegal. And it ought to be.
And conflating pharmaceuticals with recreational drugs is a sure sign of intellectual dishonesty.

Well I can say that drinking harms your body, as it's essentially a poison, and that no responsible person would do it. So should you be legally barred from doing so because it's irresponsible to drink in the first place? Should we throw you in prison for drinking or possessing alcohol?

Your argument manages to be both invalid and unsound.

 

[kwc57]

I dont know who Leonard Reed is or why I or anyone else should take him as an authority. But based on that violent self defense would be prohibited as well.
Where do rigths come from "the creator" or "our humanity"? How was this communicated? Where in the Bible or any other document claiming divine inspiration does it enumerate "natural rights"?

Leonard Read was a libertarian who founded FEE, one of the longest standing libertarian organizations. So he's certainly an authority on libertarianism.

If you want to know about natural rights theory I suggest you read John Locke, who espoused it. Are you unaware that the Declaration of Independence was essentially Thomas Jefferson using Locke's ideas of natural rights?

That's called the "ipse dixit fallacy." It's a fallacy for a reason.

Are you sure you don't ?

 

[The Rabbi]

Leonard Read was a libertarian who founded FEE, one of the longest standing libertarian organizations. So he's certainly an authority on libertarianism.

If you want to know about natural rights theory I suggest you read John Locke, who espoused it. Are you unaware that the Declaration of Independence was essentially Thomas Jefferson using Locke's ideas of natural rights?

That's called the "ipse dixit fallacy." It's a fallacy for a reason.

Are you sure you don't ?

Your avatar is actually you, isn't it Wookie Boy?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah I do drink, actually. How is that relevant again?
But I don't climb into a car and drive around. That's stupid. And illegal. And it ought to be.
And conflating pharmaceuticals with recreational drugs is a sure sign of intellectual dishonesty.

I see.

You think you can use your drug of choice responsibly, but think everyone else is too stupid to be able to do the same. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

Talk about putting words in my mouth. If that isn't intellectually dishonest, I don't know what is.
I see that you cannot defend your beliefs and fall back on ad hominems and dishonesty.

You admitted you drink, alcohol is a drug, you oppose other people who use drugs. Where am I putting words in your mouth?

 

[The Rabbi]

I see.

You think you can use your drug of choice responsibly, but think everyone else is too stupid to be able to do the same. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

Talk about putting words in my mouth. If that isn't intellectually dishonest, I don't know what is.
I see that you cannot defend your beliefs and fall back on ad hominems and dishonesty.

You admitted you drink, alcohol is a drug, you oppose other people who use drugs. Where am I putting words in your mouth?

With every post.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I dont know who Leonard Reed is or why I or anyone else should take him as an authority. But based on that violent self defense would be prohibited as well.
Where do rigths come from "the creator" or "our humanity"? How was this communicated? Where in the Bible or any other document claiming divine inspiration does it enumerate "natural rights"?

Leonard Read was a libertarian who founded FEE, one of the longest standing libertarian organizations. So he's certainly an authority on libertarianism.

If you want to know about natural rights theory I suggest you read John Locke, who espoused it. Are you unaware that the Declaration of Independence was essentially Thomas Jefferson using Locke's ideas of natural rights?

That's called the "ipse dixit fallacy." It's a fallacy for a reason.