Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I am against any Opiate based drug purely because it is lethal and no one should have to die or lose a loved one from drug overdose. That would include Heroin. I am advocating for Pot to be downgraded from a schedule 1 narcotic to a schedule 2 narcotic and legalizing it for the primary purpose of being an alternative medication. I realize there may be more recreational Pot use as a result but no solution is without a side effect. But the benefits IMO far outweigh the negatives.I don't believe people should be jailed for marijuana USE either. The cost to the taxpayer and the cost to the family the user leaves behind is enormous. By jailing a Pot user you have not solved a problem, you have created a problem. That makes no sense to me.Yes. The goal is to help people with chronic pain and depression in the least damaging way possible. Cannibis is a very powerful substance and over time probably has negative effects. I am not denying that. But given that it is currently the only viable option to Opiates that kill 60,000 Americans per year and push millions more into hardcore addiction, Pot is the better alternative IMO.Oh no, I know that pot is not addictive, and yes, opiates are really hard to break. So the reason you think pot usage should not be met with abduction is because it's not particularly dangerous and can even be helpful?
Well, I certainly agree with you on that - pot is less dangerous than opiates, in my experience, and it may also have many beneficial properties. I don't agree that this is the reason why we should not cage people for using it, however. The reason why we shouldn't cage people for pot is because it's a human rights violation to cage anyone who has not violated the rights of another.
What about heroin use? I don't see marijuana as being any more harmful than a cigarette really. Heroin is an entirely different thing.
Well you got me there. I am a pragmatist to the core. I think it is much too difficult a task to legislate based on morality.I don't believe people should be jailed for marijuana USE either. The cost to the taxpayer and the cost to the family the user leaves behind is enormous. By jailing a Pot user you have not solved a problem, you have created a problem. That makes no sense to me.Yes. The goal is to help people with chronic pain and depression in the least damaging way possible. Cannibis is a very powerful substance and over time probably has negative effects. I am not denying that. But given that it is currently the only viable option to Opiates that kill 60,000 Americans per year and push millions more into hardcore addiction, Pot is the better alternative IMO.Oh no, I know that pot is not addictive, and yes, opiates are really hard to break. So the reason you think pot usage should not be met with abduction is because it's not particularly dangerous and can even be helpful?
Well, I certainly agree with you on that - pot is less dangerous than opiates, in my experience, and it may also have many beneficial properties. I don't agree that this is the reason why we should not cage people for using it, however. The reason why we shouldn't cage people for pot is because it's a human rights violation to cage anyone who has not violated the rights of another.
Of course I agree with your accurate assessment, though I'm troubled by the nature of your argument. The primary reason why imprisoning people for drug use is ill-advised is because it's immoral, not because it's expensive. However, both morality and expense both speak to practicality in the long run, so I don't fault you for being pragmatic... I'd just like to extend that pragmatism to the core principle at play.
I think it is much too difficult a task to legislate based on morality.
Threat of violence......EnslavedDo you understand that in order to have nice roads and other "services" that we need to pay taxes. Who in the hell would pay for it otherwise? Taxes are a way to pool our money together to get things done that need to be done in order to have a successful country and economy!
I would pay for roads because I like roads. Wouldn't you? If enough people wouldn't pay for it, then roads do not have the required support to justify their existence. Considering that fidget spinners exist by this very same free-market, supply and demand principle, I'm sure roads wouldn't be a problem once the sleeping masses awoke to the fact that society is their personal responsibility.
Having roads doesn't justify robbing people under threat of violence in order to do it. Only via a fundamental, species-wide moral breakdown would people think any differently. The worst case scenario in a moral society is that there is no road, just as there wasn't one yesterday. In other words, nothing happens. In an immoral society, millions are enslaved (having their labor claimed by another party under threat), and that money is wastefully spent, or squandered through corruption, and used to do all sorts of things that people would never support voluntarily, like foreign wars costing billions, etc.
It’s the Golden RuleIt's true. In order for your ideas to work, then you have to have smart and self actualized human beings. Take a look around! Lol.
Exactly, which is why I'm trying to get YOU to embrace being a smart, self-actualized human being instead of condoning and supporting the immoral violence of the state. A society cannot become intelligent and moral but by each individual making that choice. I have made that choice because someone said the things to me that I'm saying to you; so we're 1 person closer to the goal. So now it's your turn... will you choose to let the immorality of others justify your own? If so, then they may point to your immorality to justify their theirs, and humanity will travel in a hopeless circle forever. You only have power to choose for you, and if you want a peaceful, prosperous world, you must choose accordingly.
Disagreeing with YOU doesn't make me any less smart or self actualized. I have been through hell and back again, so if anyone gives things extra thought and weighs all the pros and cons, it is moi!
Disagreeing with me isn’t the issue, it’s denying the inherent rights of the individual and failing to address the logical arguments in defense of those rights that’s the problem. Two consenting adults making a mutually-agreeable transaction is not subject to your review - they are not violating anyone’s rights and no one has a right to interfere, personally or by proxy.
The destructive nature of heroin is irrelevant because it does not harm anyone other than the user. Subsequent actions that the user may be inspired to by their addiction are a separate issue, because the drug use itself does not invariably lead to those actions by necessity.
Another problem is that the strong (like another poster mentioned) would eventually overpower and exploit the weak, and then you would have real forced government, similar to dictatorships where the guy with the most money and power wins.
We vote our people into office to represent us. Is it a perfect system? No, but far better than your no system at all.
Would you agree that in order to "grant" someone something, you must first have it yourself?
The delegation of power to Congress is limited by the power of the individuals who initiate the delegation. In other words, if you don't have the power (the right) to tax your neighbor personally, or make law which he must obey under threat of violence, how can you "grant" that power to Congress?
No person, or group of people, has the rights "delegated" to Congress, or the president, so the delegation is invalid. It's made up out of whole cloth. Considering "representation", it should be rather obvious that your representative cannot have rights and powers exceeding your own and still be said to represent you.
There is a system (or order) in place in a free society - the natural order. And no, mankind is not a brute beast. Our evolved consciousness makes it possible for us to discover and abide by fundamental moral concepts like the non-aggression principle of natural law. Does everyone understand and acknowledge this? No. Which is why I am not calling for government's immediate overthrow, but rather a rising of the cultural consciousness to recognize and commit to basic human rights, one person at a time.
The overwhelming majority already have this moral sense and do not commit violence in their daily lives. However, through malicious cultural indoctrination, they have an imposed blind spot in their thinking as it regards government. They have been made to accept the religious belief that political ritual can launder immorality and make it clean. It only requires that people be helped to recognize the inconsistency of their support of government with their own morality.
I have made this shift. You are being asked to do the same. It's an opportunity to be on the forefront of humanity's transition to the next phase of our social evolution, and to take up your place on the right side of history.
Yes, the natural system is much like that in the animal kingdom, only the strong survive and prosper because they WILL become greedy and take advantage of the more poor to benefit themselves and their own "tribe." That is how human beings are. We are nothing but more intelligent animals but still, there are a lot of qualities that we have that are just instinctual and that we don't give much thought about. Greed is a survival mechanism/instinct. When it is survival of the fittest, you HAVE to be greedy to survive and for your clan to survive and for your clan to have a voice, and lord knows everyone has to have their "voice."
I’m hearing a lot of fear-based speculations coupled with an unwillingess to directly address the logical moral arguments for freedom. This reveals that you have chosen to abandon reason and morality in favor of the false promise of security purported by governmental authority.
Experience has taught me that repeatedly banging upon a closed door yields only frustration. Should you desire to explore the topic further at any time, I would certainly be willing to continue. For now, I leave you with some pertinent words from Samuel Adams:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.“
This argument and arguments like this one matter to me, because I am still making up my mind. While I can give someone a list of things I disagree with, I can't give someone a definite answer regarding what exactly I believe is optimal. I've been following this argument, and I guess what I'm trying to say is that I kind of need this, and I'm sure other people do as well.
Threat of violence......EnslavedI would pay for roads because I like roads. Wouldn't you? If enough people wouldn't pay for it, then roads do not have the required support to justify their existence. Considering that fidget spinners exist by this very same free-market, supply and demand principle, I'm sure roads wouldn't be a problem once the sleeping masses awoke to the fact that society is their personal responsibility.
Having roads doesn't justify robbing people under threat of violence in order to do it. Only via a fundamental, species-wide moral breakdown would people think any differently. The worst case scenario in a moral society is that there is no road, just as there wasn't one yesterday. In other words, nothing happens. In an immoral society, millions are enslaved (having their labor claimed by another party under threat), and that money is wastefully spent, or squandered through corruption, and used to do all sorts of things that people would never support voluntarily, like foreign wars costing billions, etc.
What a Drama Queen
Samuel Adams was one of the founding fathers of OUR form of government. Hello?
Seems like you don’t agree with any of their platform. It’s not like they’re fiscally conservative anymore.I'm not really a republicrat, I'm tired of the world police dept they're running, I oppose their position on pot legalization, and I wish they'd drop the social issues to the back burner.
I don't mind them undermining abortion and the special rights for queers, but they shouldn't be focused on it.
I'm more of a libertarian I suppose.
.
Seems like you don’t agree with any of their platform. It’s not like they’re fiscally conservative anymore.I'm not really a republicrat, I'm tired of the world police dept they're running, I oppose their position on pot legalization, and I wish they'd drop the social issues to the back burner.
I don't mind them undermining abortion and the special rights for queers, but they shouldn't be focused on it.
I'm more of a libertarian I suppose.
.
Some government is necessary to prevent the strong from overpowering or taking advantage of the week.No, and neither does dismissing an argument based on the fact that you find it silly. It does, however, prevent civil discourse on the subject, which would otherwise allow you to defeat his argument, not only for the lurkers, but also for yourself and your opponent.Disagreeing with YOU doesn't make me any less smart or self actualized. I have been through hell and back again, so if anyone gives things extra thought and weighs all the pros and cons, it is moi!
He made a legitimate argument, detailing his thoughts point for point, and you more or less said "That's silly!". If his argument is silly, you should be able to detail WHY it's silly. Something like "That's Anarchy!" or "That's a Conspiracy!" or "That's goofy!" does not equate to an argument. What he's asking you to do is to match and counter him point for point in order to defend your position or tear down his, instead of disregarding his argument.
My simple statement that human beings are flawed dismantles his entire idea. Not to mention, he has no ideas of his own, just government is bad in every scenario. I don't agree. I already stated why I think some limited government is necessary. Like I said, to think that people and especially certain kinds of people would self govern is just ridiculous Candy Land type of thinking and shows a poor knowledge of history of humans and how brutal they actually are to one another when they feel desperate.
Erm... government IS the strong overpowering and taking advantage of the weak. The economically strong can leverage government to their own advantage, and government itself is made strong by complicit consensus, and dominates the individual dissenter.
We vote our people into office to represent us. Is it a perfect system? No, but far better than your no system at all.
All of us need to do a better job choosing.We vote our people into office to represent us. Is it a perfect system? No, but far better than your no system at all.
Samuel Adams was one of the founding fathers of OUR form of government. Hello?
“There is one thing which gives me not a little pain, and it is this. The hon. SAMUEL ADAMS, I hear, is in opposition to the plan of federal government“ - Extract of a letter from a gentleman in Salem, to his friend in this town, December 26, 1787
“Adams did not attend the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He rejected the purpose of the Convention, which was to strengthen the central government. Adams feared that a stronger government would infringe on the people’s liberty.” - Bill of Rights Institute
All of us need to do a better job choosing.We vote our people into office to represent us. Is it a perfect system? No, but far better than your no system at all.
Good luck with that. This notion of, "If we could only get the right people in there..." is - forgive my saying it - childish in the extreme.
You really think people are drawn to positions of power by selflessness? Then why aren't we seeing candidates drawn from the world of charity and humanitarian outreach? Almost exclusively, we see lawyers and businessmen (glorified salesmen). Not exactly two groups defined by their honesty and altruism. What's worse, politics draws sociopaths like flies to honey. It's the perfect way to leverage their deceptive charisma to greatest effect, with very low risk.
And do you actually believe the "the people" choose the candidates? That they're reluctantly lifted up as the chosen champions of the lowly masses? Do you think the most wealthy, influential people in the world, who have no allegiance to party or country, but have the power to fund campaigns and affect who gets media coverage and who doesn't, are just going to sit back and let nature take its course, hoping it falls out in their favor? Or do you think they're going to do what they always do and pull out all the stops to make sure their puppet gets put out in front? And how hard do you think it is for them to make sure both candidates will serve their desired ends? They like to call this "risk management", and its just common sense. These people didn't get where they are by leaving their fate to the roll of the dice.
And why would politicians serve YOU anyway? What do you have to offer? Your precious, glorious, golden vote? Pleeeeeease. Getting that is like taking candy from a baby. It's called demagoguery, and it's wonderfully successful - have you noticed? What passes for "debate" is a joke - there's not a logical argument to be found within 50 miles of that dog-and-pony show. Serving you isn't a thought in these people's minds. Now, using you, on the other hand... well, that's where the rubber meets the road. That's the whole game, and all their thought is bent upon it.
And you think you're going to get out from under this by "choosing better?" You're a sheep amongst wolves; completely outclassed and hopelessly at their mercy. Actors can make you believe anything - don't ever forget that.
"The cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf." - Thomas Paine
"You see a man's face, but you don't know his heart." - Mad Lion
I had a similar discussion with BB a few weeks ago. In an idyllic world there would be no need for laws or government as each person would 'govern' him or herself and not impose upon the freedoms of others. That has never been proven to work on any scale beyond perhaps a small commune or tribe. Humans in general need a framework of laws that insure the basic freedoms of each person. Otherwise as I stated in the previous discussion, the law of nature will prevail which is the strongest does and takes what he wants.This was what was happening in Liberia where Liberian war lords were forming gangs and going around torturing and murdering innocent villagers.
Adams was wrongSamuel Adams was one of the founding fathers of OUR form of government. Hello?
“There is one thing which gives me not a little pain, and it is this. The hon. SAMUEL ADAMS, I hear, is in opposition to the plan of federal government“ - Extract of a letter from a gentleman in Salem, to his friend in this town, December 26, 1787
“Adams did not attend the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He rejected the purpose of the Convention, which was to strengthen the central government. Adams feared that a stronger government would infringe on the people’s liberty.” - Bill of Rights Institute
Maybe so, but he certainly didn't believe in NO GOVERNMENT. He didn't like the idea of a federal government is all.
