True or false: any personal freedom that brings harm to society in general should...

[Oddball]

Polchik has a big black piece of wood shoved up her hairy ****.

What a disgusting sub-human you are.

But, I bet you've heard that before.

I bet you've been told to take the splinters out of your dark hole before as well.

Please, post the Bush video one moar time before you're gone...For old time's sake!

 

[Agit8r]

...be outlawed.

True.

The thing is, that what is thought to harm society is often subjective. When we see people injured, deprived of basic rights, etc, that is what should guide policy.

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him; and, no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to Francis Gilmer (June 7, 1816)

So Jefferson is saying that not only are there natural rights retained by the individual,

there are also natural duties to the collective owed by the individual?

lol, let the inmates chew on that for awhile.

It sounds simplistic at first glance, but after a moment's reflection, it leaves a lot of room for situational interpretation

 

[nodoginnafight]

The government can't fine you. The homeowner voluntarily enters into an association where they agree in advance what color to paint their house. This has nothing to do with the government. If you don't like it, don't buy your house there.

You simply cannot refrain from being the least intelligent poster on this forum can you?

Why is that?

Changing Colors: Purple House Owner Decides To Comply With Lubbock City Ordinance - KCBD NewsChannel 11 Lubbock

There's one of many examples.

Tell me how many examples you would need to admit you're an idiot and I'll see if I can accommodate you.

"You simply cannot refrain from being the least intelligent poster on this forum can you?
Why is that?"


You simply cannot refrain from having the most trite, unimaginative, jejune insults, can you?

I'm gonna guess it's related to your IQ, and lack in that precinct.


Has that been mentioned to you previously?

Personal insults aside, the post does seem to prove the claim that katzndogz has clearly been deomostrated wrong.... again. I agree with Katz sometimes and I disagree with Katz ... well ... MOST of the time to be honest. But the poster does seem to frequently just make lots of claims that are factually incorrect.

 

[Billy000]

Sometimes it is difficult for people to admit/see that certain personal freedoms cause societal harm. Legalizing all drugs for instance, would be very detrimental to society.

Would it? It would reduce crime, keep many people out of jail, and save billions of dollars.

Yeah okay it would reduce crime that would involves drugs.. That doesn't make it a good idea. I'll give you that it would save billions of dollars, but at what cost? Families would be ruined. Kids would have easier access to methamphetamine or cocaine. People who would otherwise be making a strong contribution to society would be turned into junkies. Addiction to all drugs in general would skyrocket.

Legalize weed if you want. Hell, shrooms too whatever. But heroine, meth and cocaine? Horrible idea.

 

[Billy000]

.

This appears to be a serious thread, and that's worrisome, so I'll toss in my two cents.

Precisely who would decide what "brings harm" to society? We'd get people arguing that an order of large fries do that by increasing potential health care costs. We'd then have that product removed from availability.

Oh wait, something like that has already happened in New York.

Holy crap. What is this knee-jerk dependence on the government -- and worse, professional politicians -- to decide what is good for us, to "allow" us to do only certain things, to remove choices at a whim? Our problems, and there are plenty of them, are cultural. Is someone going to argue that we've made murder illegal, so we should do the same with Big Macs? Is that the way the thought process goes? Should we have Americans reporting other Americans to The Authorities if we see someone eating more than one cheeseburger?

Crap, I wish I hadn't seen this thread.

.

You do raise a good point, but i think it would be easy to come to a consensus of what is harmful if people would just learn to compromise. Policies that represent the viewpoint of society in general are reachable.

 

[Oddball]

Sometimes it is difficult for people to admit/see that certain personal freedoms cause societal harm. Legalizing all drugs for instance, would be very detrimental to society.

Would it? It would reduce crime, keep many people out of jail, and save billions of dollars.

Yeah okay it would reduce crime that would involves drugs.. That doesn't make it a good idea. I'll give you that it would save billions of dollars, but at what cost? Families would be ruined. Kids would have easier access to methamphetamine or cocaine. People who would otherwise be making a strong contribution to society would be turned into junkies. Addiction to all drugs in general would skyrocket.

Legalize weed if you want. Hell, shrooms too whatever. But heroine, meth and cocaine? Horrible idea.

Classic fearmonger argument, that totally ignores history and reality.

Meth would be practically wiped out overnight and strong concentrations of cocaine would be the exception rather than the norm....The analog would be beer and wine sales, which far outstrip those of hard liquor and occupy far and away more shelf space than distilled spirits.

Fact is that most people just want to tie a little buzz on, rather than get inebriated.

 

[Billy000]

Would it? It would reduce crime, keep many people out of jail, and save billions of dollars.

Yeah okay it would reduce crime that would involves drugs.. That doesn't make it a good idea. I'll give you that it would save billions of dollars, but at what cost? Families would be ruined. Kids would have easier access to methamphetamine or cocaine. People who would otherwise be making a strong contribution to society would be turned into junkies. Addiction to all drugs in general would skyrocket.

Legalize weed if you want. Hell, shrooms too whatever. But heroine, meth and cocaine? Horrible idea.

Classic fearmonger argument, that totally ignores history and reality.

Meth would be practically wiped out overnight and strong concentrations of cocaine would be the exception rather than the norm....The analog would be beer and wine sales, which far outstrip those of hard liquor and occupy far and away more shelf space than distilled spirits.

Fact is that most people just want to tie a little buzz on, rather than get inebriated.

There would always be a demand for meth.

Get a little buzz on? People shoot for a buzz because of how difficult it is in general to afford hard drugs. For a lot of people the initial intention to experiment would easily turn into a total addiction.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Would it? It would reduce crime, keep many people out of jail, and save billions of dollars.

Yeah okay it would reduce crime that would involves drugs.. That doesn't make it a good idea. I'll give you that it would save billions of dollars, but at what cost? Families would be ruined. Kids would have easier access to methamphetamine or cocaine. People who would otherwise be making a strong contribution to society would be turned into junkies. Addiction to all drugs in general would skyrocket.

Legalize weed if you want. Hell, shrooms too whatever. But heroine, meth and cocaine? Horrible idea.

Classic fearmonger argument, that totally ignores history and reality.

Meth would be practically wiped out overnight and strong concentrations of cocaine would be the exception rather than the norm....The analog would be beer and wine sales, which far outstrip those of hard liquor and occupy far and away more shelf space than distilled spirits.

Fact is that most people just want to tie a little buzz on, rather than get inebriated.

I gotta agree with Oddball here. The notion that huge segments of our population are just waiting for the OK from the government to shove a needle in their arm is kinda silly to me.

No types of prohibition laws seem to actually deter people from engaging in a behavior that they want to. The "war on drugs" hasn't stopped very many from smoking pot if they wanted to - even though it has been illegal.

If you legalize drugs - I beleve it will actually be harder for kids to get their hands on it. When I was in high school, it was easier to get pot than it was to get beer. (Drug dealers don't card. Business owners who have something to lose do)

 

[bripat9643]

...be outlawed.

True.

False.

 

[nodoginnafight]

For a lot of people the initial intention to experiment would easily turn into a total addiction.

Really? More than 50% in my generation gave in to that "intial intention to experiment" and how many became crack or coke heads?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Would it? It would reduce crime, keep many people out of jail, and save billions of dollars.

Yeah okay it would reduce crime that would involves drugs.. That doesn't make it a good idea. I'll give you that it would save billions of dollars, but at what cost? Families would be ruined. Kids would have easier access to methamphetamine or cocaine. People who would otherwise be making a strong contribution to society would be turned into junkies. Addiction to all drugs in general would skyrocket.

Legalize weed if you want. Hell, shrooms too whatever. But heroine, meth and cocaine? Horrible idea.

Classic fearmonger argument, that totally ignores history and reality.

Meth would be practically wiped out overnight and strong concentrations of cocaine would be the exception rather than the norm....The analog would be beer and wine sales, which far outstrip those of hard liquor and occupy far and away more shelf space than distilled spirits.

Fact is that most people just want to tie a little buzz on, rather than get inebriated.

Right on target, meth would be gone and most people wouldnt turn coke into crack or shoot it up, A few bumps and done. Weed and alcohol are downers, coke and meth are uppers.

 

[nodoginnafight]

how difficult it is in general to afford hard drugs

FALSE
Crack is pretty darn cheap.
Good wine is pretty pricey

 

[tjvh]

...be outlawed.

True.

False. You don't give up Freedoms because a tiny minority abuse them. Unless of course you allow your rational thought to be trumped by emotions.

 

[nodoginnafight]

...be outlawed.

True.

False. You don't give up Freedoms because a tiny majority abuse them. Unless of course you allow your rational thought to be trumped by emotions.

I think you meant to say minority didn't you ?

 

[tjvh]

...be outlawed.

True.

False. You don't give up Freedoms because a tiny majority abuse them. Unless of course you allow your rational thought to be trumped by emotions.

I think you meant to say minority didn't you ?

I did. Fixed.

 

[bripat9643]

Sometimes it is difficult for people to admit/see that certain personal freedoms cause societal harm. Legalizing all drugs for instance, would be very detrimental to society.

Using force against people causes more harm to society. The drug addict causes harm to himself end becomes a burden on his family, but when his habit becomes illegal he resorts to stealing and robbing thereby harming hundreds of people. When he in incarcerated, he becomes a burden on the taxpayers.

The idea that the government can solve social problems by making them illegal is fallacious.

 

[nodoginnafight]

False. You don't give up Freedoms because a tiny majority abuse them. Unless of course you allow your rational thought to be trumped by emotions.

I think you meant to say minority didn't you ?

I did. Fixed.

Cool. I agree with you.

 

[Katzndogz]

The government can't fine you. The homeowner voluntarily enters into an association where they agree in advance what color to paint their house. This has nothing to do with the government. If you don't like it, don't buy your house there.

You simply cannot refrain from being the least intelligent poster on this forum can you?

Why is that?

Changing Colors: Purple House Owner Decides To Comply With Lubbock City Ordinance - KCBD NewsChannel 11 Lubbock

There's one of many examples.

Tell me how many examples you would need to admit you're an idiot and I'll see if I can accommodate you.

"You simply cannot refrain from being the least intelligent poster on this forum can you?
Why is that?"


You simply cannot refrain from having the most trite, unimaginative, jejune insults, can you?

I'm gonna guess it's related to your IQ, and lack in that precinct.


Has that been mentioned to you previously?

You don't like zoning ordinances. The people VOLUNTARILY moved into an area knowing what the zoning ordinance was. They agreed to abide by the zoning. Then they decided they didn't want to do that. What really makes you so stupid? Is it genetic or what.

 

[kwc57]

Yeah okay it would reduce crime that would involves drugs.. That doesn't make it a good idea. I'll give you that it would save billions of dollars, but at what cost? Families would be ruined. Kids would have easier access to methamphetamine or cocaine. People who would otherwise be making a strong contribution to society would be turned into junkies. Addiction to all drugs in general would skyrocket.

Legalize weed if you want. Hell, shrooms too whatever. But heroine, meth and cocaine? Horrible idea.

Classic fearmonger argument, that totally ignores history and reality.

Meth would be practically wiped out overnight and strong concentrations of cocaine would be the exception rather than the norm....The analog would be beer and wine sales, which far outstrip those of hard liquor and occupy far and away more shelf space than distilled spirits.

Fact is that most people just want to tie a little buzz on, rather than get inebriated.

There would always be a demand for meth.

Get a little buzz on? People shoot for a buzz because of how difficult it is in general to afford hard drugs. For a lot of people the initial intention to experiment would easily turn into a total addiction.

Are you unaware of prohibition and the crime syndicates that it spawned. Do we have that today? No, not with alcohol. Yes, with drugs. Treat drugs like alcohol and you'll get the same results.

 

[Coyote]

...be outlawed.

True.

True or False....both.

For example, smoking is a personal freedom. Each person has a right to smoke if they wish too. That in itself causes no harm to society beyond increased healthcare costs which can be handled in ways other than outlawing it.

On the other hand smoking in public places or work places does cause harm to others and an individual has no right to impose his or her personal freedom on another in a way that is harmful so that should be outlawed.

That's my opinion