For Libertarian leaning folks

[dblack]

No. But things that are bad for society, like druggies, should be gone.

Even if they're doing nothing to harm others?

This is where typical conservatives lose me. They're really committed to the same idea that statist liberals are - namely, that government is there to shape society, to tell people how to live. I prefer a government that protects our rights, and otherwise stays out of the way. Leaves us free to create the kind of society we want, without resorting to coercion.

And? So since there are some who aren't a threat to others & society, then we should overlook all of those who are? I think not.

Nope. I didn't say that. Did I?

You could give everyone a nuclear weapon, and most people wouldn't set it off. But the ones that do, are going to affect a LOT of people. Just like drugs & druggies. And since there are so many druggy criminals, then there's 100 X more victims.

You're comparing a druggie to a nuclear weapon? Heh.. no.

Well, the last time I checked there were probably millions of druggy criminals. Some are free in society. And some will soon be. How many victims does that make?

You tell me. You're making some pretty extreme, and completely unsupported claims here. Most people who use drugs, like most people in general, don't harm others. We should deal with those who do, like we do with people in general who harm others, but dismissing people's rights based on your stereotypes is not good government.

The LP is retarded in their opposition to the justice system.

The LP doesn't oppose the justice system. We never harped about "defunding the police", and we're not anarchists. You would do well to re-examine some of the stereotypes you're leaning on here. They don't hold water.

BS, the LP defends the druggies every time y'all bring up legalizing drugs.

We defend anyone who is being persecuted by government when they've done nothing wrong.

Every POS that get's to walk away from a conviction, is a slap in the face to every victim he/she created.

If they've victimized someone, they should never walk away from a conviction. Who is saying otherwise?

Imagine, see the same guy who was on meth when he raped your daughter, free on the street in just 5 or 10 years? And high as a kite again.

Ok. I imagined it. What's that got to do with anything?

 

[JWBooth]

The LP's leadership should adopt this message for drugs & druggies.

"We don't give a fuck about you or your civil liberties.

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

 

[dblack]

The LP's leadership should adopt this message for drugs & druggies.

"We don't give a fuck about you or your civil liberties. Druggies have become such a burden to society, and on what government (via taxes) has to spend, that there's no way we're going to try and defend you and your actions."

But, we do give a fuck about civil liberties. Everyone's. Sorry that disappoints you.

 

[YoursTruly]

But, we do give a fuck about civil liberties. Everyone's. Sorry that disappoints you.

But you don't get why we have less. A lot of those are because of the druggies and their criminal ways. And the LP doesn't seem to care that we and the government have to spend so much money on security and incarcerations.

Druggies and their criminal ways cost us both.

LMAO.... The LP is supporting a group of people who for the most part, don't vote. They cost us a ton of money and some of our liberties.

It's just my opinion, but seems they're helping to keep the LP down. There are more important issues going on in this country. Issues that affect the vast majority of the people. Drugs and druggies is the last thing the LP even needs to talk about. Much less support.

 

[YoursTruly]

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

I agree. Our civil liberties need to be protected. But not for those who are a huge burden on our society. Druggies have over extended their civil liberties. They're pushing that shit like race hustlers are pushing systemic racism.

Once they go wrong, their civil liberties should only be to a fair trial.

 

[dblack]

But you don't get why we have less. A lot of those are because of the druggies and their criminal ways. And the LP doesn't seem to care that we and the government have to spend so much money on security and incarcerations.

Again, if someone is doing something wrong, throw them in jail. But what you want to do is classify an entire group of people as "wrong" and strip them of their rights. I can't support that. Who's next? People who listen to rap music? People who drink alcohol? Sports fans? People who don't maintain their health properly?

Druggies and their criminal ways cost us both.

Again, you're assuming "druggies" have criminal ways. That's just your stereotype. Most crimes associated with drugs happen because drugs are illegal.

LMAO.... The LP is supporting a group of people who for the most part, don't vote. They cost us a ton of money and some of our liberties.

We're not "supporting" anyone. We're defending liberty. It's right there in the name.

It's just my opinion, but seems they're helping to keep the LP down.

Maybe. Everyone has their idea of different groups who should be targeted for persecution. But we should resist that urge. It's bad government.

There are more important issues going on in this country. Issues that affect the vast majority of the people.

No argument there.

Drugs and druggies is the last thing the LP even needs to talk about. Much less support.

Support??

Listen, I really think it comes back to that basic premise I mentioned earlier. Statists, on both the left and the right, want government to dictate the "social fabric"; to determine the right way to live and make everyone comply; to support people who are "doing it right", and penalize those who aren't. That's not the kind of government we want. Libertarians think that approach is an abuse of government.

 

[JWBooth]

 

[Curried Goats]

View attachment 916322

That don't even make sense. Property and by extension theft, only exists in context of the State. In Nature everything is up for grabs.

 

[YoursTruly]

Even if they're doing nothing to harm others?

Like I said, if they were getting stoned on their free time and not adversely affecting the lives of others, that would be one thing. You know, like home delivery & paid for by their own honest money.

But drug dealers don't have a conscience. They could have 10 decent customers and one customer who letting their kid(s) go without food, medicine to clothes, just so he/she can get high. There's a LOT of those druggies out there like that. George Floyd for one. Who was $30,000 behind in child support and rarely seen his kids. He, like a lot of them, would rather do drugs and commit crimes than take care of their own kids.

This is where typical conservatives lose me. They're really committed to the same idea that statist liberals are - namely, that government is there to shape society, to tell people how to live. I prefer a government that protects our rights, and otherwise stays out of the way. Leaves us free to create the kind of society we want, without resorting to coercion.

I'm not in any way, shape or form saying that the government should tell people how to live their lives. If people would simply act right, there'd be very little need for our justice system. But citizens like to cheat others, they like to steal, murder, rape and commit atrocities on children. And a HUGE portion of those people use drugs. This is the very reason we have LEO's, jails and prisons. Because people just won't act right.

Here's a clue for you, sherlock. Do you know why cops have to write so many retarded traffic tickets? Because they have to pay for the fuckin criminals. Most of which are on drugs.
Nothing is free.

The cost of criminals is something the LP doesn't even think about.

Nope. I didn't say that. Did I?

You might as well have. Because there's a lot of decent folks in society who choose to be decent adults. They simply want to go about their day without being adversely affected. And if it takes being a LOT tougher on druggy criminals, then so be it. What ever it takes, because it's the decent people who keep the economy going. We keep people in their jobs. We keep companies growing. We feed the needy. We cure the sick. The decent people of this world is what makes this world a decent place.

Druggy criminals don't. They're worthless.

You're comparing a druggie to a nuclear weapon? Heh.. no.

No. I'm making a point. One I know you got, because you're changing the subject from the point to this question.
The point: Anything can be harmless if in the hands of the right people. But not everyone is the same. So there has to be laws in effect to protect the innocent.

You tell me. You're making some pretty extreme, and completely unsupported claims here. Most people who use drugs, like most people in general, don't harm others. We should deal with those who do, like we do with people in general who harm others, but dismissing people's rights based on your stereotypes is not good government.

Just dealing with those who do, without addressing why or how they got that way, is retarded. And it completely irresponsible.

A lot of those homeless druggies got that way because of drugs. Just a little here, and a little there. Next thing they know, they're divorces, jobless, can't see their kids, have a criminal record and no way in hell they're going to get back on their feet because the drugs have fried their brains.
God damn dude. Surely you have heard the story of someone who went from top to bottom because of drugs. I know a few just in my family. And have know a few more who I was acquainted with in my life.

How fucked up does someone have to be to choose getting high and living on the streets, verses living a normal decent life?
You've never associated with many homeless people have you? 90% of them are the same. They all want to get out of their hole. But not enough to actually become responsible and give up their drugs.

The LP doesn't oppose the justice system. We never harped about "defunding the police", and we're not anarchists. You would do well to re-examine some of the stereotypes you're leaning on here. They don't hold water.

I meant on the justice system as it pertains to drugs and druggies. I don't have a republican view of the LP.

We defend anyone who is being persecuted by government when they've done nothing wrong.

And that's one flaw with the LP. They'll defend a druggy criminals persecution by the government, regardless of why he's being persecuted.

Example: You walk up on 3 cops in an alley, beating the life out of some female. You break out your camera phone and start recording. You start screaming at the cops to stop. You call 911. After that, you give the video to the media. They garner enough support to have these cops thrown in jail for life.

But here's where the LP & the left goes wrong. The cops were beating the life out of this chick because she sold her 10yr old daughter for drug money, to another druggy with a horse size dick. Who fucked the little girl to death.


In other words, it shouldn't matter to the LP as to what happens to druggy criminals. They're not worth fighting for. The lp and the left don't care about what the perp did. They just want to fight for someone's civil rights, as if it gives them some moral high ground.

If they've victimized someone, they should never walk away from a conviction. Who is saying otherwise?

It happens all the damn time.

Ok. I imagined it. What's that got to do with anything?

Well, that happens all the time to. Apparently that person is still not fit for society. But is back out on the streets because someone was protecting his civil liberties.

No one. Not one person should be set free from prison until they're actually fit for society.

 

[JWBooth]

If I didn't know better I'd say gdoan from the old Hannity boards migrated over.
IYKYK

 

[LeroyDumonde]

That don't even make sense. Property and by extension theft, only exists in context of the State. In Nature everything is up for grabs.

Humans have an acquisitive instinct. Even a baby will get angry if you take away its toy. The state merely makes regular rules about property to help avoid the violent conflicts we see in the animal world over property disputes.

 

[YoursTruly]

Again, if someone is doing something wrong, throw them in jail. But what you want to do is classify an entire group of people as "wrong" and strip them of their rights. I can't support that. Who's next? People who listen to rap music? People who drink alcohol? Sports fans? People who don't maintain their health properly?

The bad people in all of those groups.

Again, you're assuming "druggies" have criminal ways. That's just your stereotype. Most crimes associated with drugs happen because drugs are illegal.

The druggies with criminal ways have criminal ways.
Yeah, someone steals something for drug money, it's got nothing to do with drugs right?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

We're not "supporting" anyone. We're defending liberty. It's right there in the name.

Who's liberty? Why TF does a druggy criminals liberty even matter to the LP? Those people don't vote. They don't donate. They just get high and commit crimes.

Maybe. Everyone has their idea of different groups who should be targeted for persecution. But we should resist that urge. It's bad government.

No argument there.

Support??

Listen, I really think it comes back to that basic premise I mentioned earlier. Statists, on both the left and the right, want government to dictate the "social fabric"; to determine the right way to live and make everyone comply; to support people who are "doing it right", and penalize those who aren't. That's not the kind of government we want. Libertarians think that approach is an abuse of government.

In ever instance of our lives now days, there's always a reason or an excuse to blame government. A lot of times, that blame is 100% legit. But when it comes to drugs, druggy's and criminals associated with that group, it's ALL those people, not the government.

It's one reason why our borders need to be more secure. Because of the DRUGS they're bringing in, that is helping to create so many druggies and criminals. It's why so many Americans are dying from drugs. It's why so many businesses are closing down in high crime/drug area's.
This is just like a lot of other issues. A few people themselves screw it up for the rest of us. But because those few people adversely affect the lives of so many others, the government has not option but to step in. And when they do, we all lose a little.

I drove a semi for many years. And the whole time I kept hearing how "My dispatcher is pushing me too hard. And we need electronic logs so that they can't do that." Instead of finding an easier job, these fuckers pushed and pushed until now ELOGs are pretty much standard. Bunch of god damn lazy crybabies, looking for an excuse to be even more lazy. And it pushed those of us who could run two or three log books, and still drive safely, out of of the business. In the end, wages in trucking had to go up, because the mile one could drive in a week was shortened. Which made the cost of deliveries go up. Which made the price of the product for the consumers go up.

In other words, the people themselves screw things up. They give the government the justification to infringe on our liberties.
All these fucking gun nuts, having a road rage shoot out, the ones committing mass shooting, etc etc are giving the government the justification to infringe on our 2A.
If there weren't so many druggy criminals, there'd be no need for more drug laws.

 

[YoursTruly]

Humans have an acquisitive instinct. Even a baby will get angry if you take away its toy. The state merely makes regular rules about property to help avoid the violent conflicts we see in the animal world over property disputes.

That's a great point. If there weren't so many thieves, there'd be fewer laws about theft.
Portland tried to decriminalize drugs and theft, and it lead to more drugs, druggies and thieves.

If it were legal to chase a thief and shoot that POS in the back, there'd be fewer thieves.

 

[Curried Goats]

Humans have an acquisitive instinct. Even a baby will get angry if you take away its toy. The state merely makes regular rules about property to help avoid the violent conflicts we see in the animal world over property disputes.

Just because a baby feels ownership of a thing and gets angry when some other baby tries to take it doesn't mean there's some magical sky fairy granting them objective ownership over that thing. Property is a legal fiction and legality is a function of government.

 

[dblack]

Like I said, if they were getting stoned on their free time and not adversely affecting the lives of others, that would be one thing. You know, like home delivery & paid for by their own honest money.

Yep. Most are.

But drug dealers don't have a conscience.

You're right. "Drug dealers" don't have a conscience. Legal cannabis outlets, on the other hand, have something more important than a conscience: legal accountability.

I'm not in any way, shape or form saying that the government should tell people how to live their lives.

Oh good. Because it really sounded like you wanted the government to tell people they can't do drugs. Glad we cleared that up.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Just because a baby feels ownership of a thing and gets angry when some other baby tries to take it doesn't mean there's some magical sky fairy granting them objective ownership over that thing. Property is a legal fiction and legality is a function of government.

I never invoked any deity. I mentioned human instincts. Property is instinctual. Government simply recognizes and generate rules about property. In the absence of the state there would still be property.

 

[YoursTruly]

You're right. "Drug dealers" don't have a conscience. Legal cannabis outlets, on the other hand, have something more important than a conscience: legal accountability.

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.

Oh good. Because it really sounded like you wanted the government to tell people they can't do drugs. Glad we cleared that up.

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.
If we could wipe out all hard drugs, even at the expense of the decent people losing theirs, I'm all for it.

They'll just have to learn to get through life without getting high. It's not hard.

 

[YoursTruly]

Just because a baby feels ownership of a thing and gets angry when some other baby tries to take it doesn't mean there's some magical sky fairy granting them objective ownership over that thing. Property is a legal fiction and legality is a function of government.

The legality of theft is to hold someone accountable for taking something that doesn't belong to them.

 

[Curried Goats]

I never invoked any deity. I mentioned human instincts. Property is instinctual.

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.

Government simply recognizes and generate rules about property. In the absence of the state there would still be property.

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.

 

[Curried Goats]

The legality of theft is to hold someone accountable for taking something that doesn't belong to them.

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