Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/5/2006 1:42:57 PM EST
Seriously? Drugs, guns, explosives, and self endangerment in general.


I understand some constraints to protect others (children/motorists) from the moronic, but why do you think we should stop them from self euthanising?
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 1:51:29 PM EST
Guess I should clarify civil and negligent liability would obviously remain as incentive to not do stupid things with others nearby.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 1:54:47 PM EST
Only Acts, not objects, should be illegal.

And then, only those acts that interfere with the rights of others should be illegal.

Period.

Murder is illegal. Guns, even though they can be used for muder, should be legal, they are objects. Drugs, even though they can be a motive for murder, should be legal. This includes ALL drugs. Cavet Emptor.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 1:56:22 PM EST
we shouldn't.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 1:57:15 PM EST
They shouldn't as long as they are not causing physical or monetary harm to thers.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 1:57:15 PM EST
We shouldn't. Bicycle helmets should be outlawed and school speed zones eliminated. The only thing that all this "safety" bullshit has done is raised the median age of the non-survivably stupid and decreased the overall national IQ. If you can't fucking figure out that Drano isn't a good flavoring for your coffee, then chances are, we don't need whatever meager contribution to society you MIGHT make someday.

Speed limits in front of middle and high schools should be 65 MPH. If you don't know by then NOT to step in front of a moving vehicle, then we'll just have to find someone else to make fries at the Jack in the Box.

Airbags? Fuck that shit. You want safe drivers? Get rid of anti-lock brakes and seatbelts and put a 10 inch stainless steel spike in the middle of the steering wheel. When inattention results in certain death, I'll betcha Suzi Soccer Mom will pull the fuck over to talk on the phone...

But hey, what the fuck do I know? I'm just a misanthropic gun nut on the intarwebnet....
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 1:57:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paveway_:
Only Acts, not objects, should be illegal.

And then, only those acts that interfere with the rights of others should be illegal.

Period.

Murder is illegal. Guns, even though they can be used for muder, should be legal, they are objects. Drugs, even though they can be a motive for murder, should be legal. This includes ALL drugs. Cavet Emptor.


I like this.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 1:58:08 PM EST
Suicide, in and of itself, is not illegal. If someone chooses to off himself, that's his decision.

Physician-assisted suicide is a different story, because, by definition, it calls on a member of a regulated profession, whose charge is to preserve life, to assist in the taking of life. That's where the bureaucracy of central government starts to have difficulty. On one hand, people who are suffering from terminal illness should have the option to end their own suffering, and do so in the most direct and reliable method. However, the very nature of the medical profession gets cross-ways with the subject, and thus cannot accept a strict mandate - one way or the other - from the Federal government.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:00:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paveway_:
Only Acts, not objects, should be illegal.

And then, only those acts that interfere with the rights of others should be illegal.

Period.

Murder is illegal. Guns, even though they can be used for muder, should be legal, they are objects. Drugs, even though they can be a motive for murder, should be legal. This includes ALL drugs. Cavet Emptor.


Hey Paveway we just agreed on something.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:02:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By Gravity_Tester:
We shouldn't. Bicycle helmets should be outlawed and school speed zones eliminated. The only thing that all this "safety" bullshit has done is raised the median age of the non-survivably stupid and decreased the overall national IQ. If you can't fucking figure out that Drano isn't a good flavoring for your coffee, then chances are, we don't need whatever meager contribution to society you MIGHT make someday.

Speed limits in front of middle and high schools should be 65 MPH. If you don't know by then NOT to step in front of a moving vehicle, then we'll just have to find someone else to make fries at the Jack in the Box.

Airbags? Fuck that shit. You want safe drivers? Get rid of anti-lock brakes and seatbelts and put a 10 inch stainless steel spike in the middle of the steering wheel. When inattention results in certain death, I'll betcha Suzi Soccer Mom will pull the fuck over to talk on the phone...

But hey, what the fuck do I know? I'm just a misanthropic gun nut on the intarwebnet....



Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:03:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By Paveway_:
Only Acts, not objects, should be illegal.

And then, only those acts that interfere with the rights of others should be illegal.

Period.

Murder is illegal. Guns, even though they can be used for muder, should be legal, they are objects. Drugs, even though they can be a motive for murder, should be legal. This includes ALL drugs. Cavet Emptor.


Hey Paveway we just agreed on something.


Cheers
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:10:20 PM EST
Come on where are the uber conservative government in place of deity nanny staters?

Not trying to pick a fight, but when everyone agrees it makes for dull conversation?
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:11:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mattl:
Come on where are the uber conservative government in place of deity nanny staters?

Not trying to pick a fight, but when everyone agrees it makes for dull conversation?
I agree.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:13:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By Mattl:
Come on where are the uber conservative government in place of deity nanny staters?

Not trying to pick a fight, but when everyone agrees it makes for dull conversation?
I agree.


+1
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:13:39 PM EST
No reason to protect the stupid from themselves. Think of it as evolution in action.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:14:43 PM EST

Because no man is an island.

What a man does in the privacy of his own home doesn't necessarily have zero effect on other individuals or society as a whole.


Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:16:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By Gravity_Tester:
We shouldn't. Bicycle helmets should be outlawed and school speed zones eliminated. The only thing that all this "safety" bullshit has done is raised the median age of the non-survivably stupid and decreased the overall national IQ. If you can't fucking figure out that Drano isn't a good flavoring for your coffee, then chances are, we don't need whatever meager contribution to society you MIGHT make someday.

Speed limits in front of middle and high schools should be 65 MPH. If you don't know by then NOT to step in front of a moving vehicle, then we'll just have to find someone else to make fries at the Jack in the Box.

Airbags? Fuck that shit. You want safe drivers? Get rid of anti-lock brakes and seatbelts and put a 10 inch stainless steel spike in the middle of the steering wheel. When inattention results in certain death, I'll betcha Suzi Soccer Mom will pull the fuck over to talk on the phone...

But hey, what the fuck do I know? I'm just a misanthropic gun nut on the intarwebnet....

Classic.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:17:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Because no man is an island.

What a man does in the privacy of his own home doesn't necessarily have zero effect on other individuals or society as a whole.




Prove it.

Examples.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:17:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paveway_:
Only Acts, not objects, should be illegal.

And then, only those acts that interfere with the rights of others should be illegal.

Period.

Murder is illegal. Guns, even though they can be used for muder, should be legal, they are objects. Drugs, even though they can be a motive for murder, should be legal. This includes ALL drugs. Cavet Emptor.


Question 100% answered in two replies. Awesome.

I like your idea, a lot.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:19:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Because no man is an island.

What a man does in the privacy of his own home doesn't necessarily have zero effect on other individuals or society as a whole.




So why have privacy at all? If the government should have the power to make laws regulating what you do in privacy, they should also have the power to monitor and enforce what you do in privacy, right?

Or are you just in favor of a host of unenforceable laws that only come into play when the government has a grudge against you?
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:20:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mattl:
Come on where are the uber conservative government in place of deity nanny staters?

Not trying to pick a fight, but when everyone agrees it makes for dull conversation?


I'd consider myself "uber" conservative.

I don't believe a nanny state is what *real* conservatives want.

Only the ones who haven't figured out that they're socialists/communists/etc.

Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:20:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paveway_:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Because no man is an island.

What a man does in the privacy of his own home doesn't necessarily have zero effect on other individuals or society as a whole.




Prove it.

Examples.


Child welfare and drugs I suspect, just a guess? If I am right I do not see where it would not be covered under negligence laws.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:23:34 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:37:42 PM EST
There sure is a lot of agreeing going on in this rare moment of ARFCOM love.

When it gets right down to it, I bet most of you really don't support what you're actually suggesting. You might (I don't know some of you from Adam), but I bet you don't. Let's find out:

Should your neighbor be able to keep his property looking like a shithouse, in your otherwise upscale neighborhood?

Should all drugs be legal? If so, should they be subjected to anything other than the nominal sales tax?

Should social security be abolished (including mandatory retirement saving)?

Should the Department of Education be abolished?

Should the Department of Homeland Securty be abolished?

Should seatbelt and helmet laws be abolished (no conditions)?

Should government recognize ANY marriage?



That should stir the pot a little.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:39:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer:
stupidity is the only natrual predator mankind has left. We should allow it to work.


You and Gravity Tester said the same thing.
But I have to give him the nod because he did so with a tad more flourish.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:44:28 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2006 2:47:01 PM EST by Mattl]

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:
There sure is a lot of agreeing going on in this rare moment of ARFCOM love.

When it gets right down to it, I bet most of you really don't support what you're actually suggesting. You might (I don't know some of you from Adam), but I bet you don't. Let's find out:

Should your neighbor be able to keep his property looking like a shithouse, in your otherwise upscale neighborhood? Sadly yes

Should all drugs be legal? If so, should they be subjected to anything other than the nominal sales tax? 1.yes 2. no

Should social security be abolished (including mandatory retirement saving)? Yes, I am 26 I will not see a penny of it anyway.

Should the Department of Education be abolished? Privatize, get of rid of dirty politicians and bereaucrats

Should the Department of Homeland Securty be abolished? Absolutely

Should seatbelt and helmet laws be abolished (no conditions)? Yes

Should government recognize ANY marriage? Yes, just call gay unions something else. Marriage to the state is a different thing than it is to the church. The Gov should not be in the business of religion.



That should stir the pot a little.
Not really. It is all about true freedom choice.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:46:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mattl:

Originally Posted By SubnetMask:
There sure is a lot of agreeing going on in this rare moment of ARFCOM love.

When it gets right down to it, I bet most of you really don't support what you're actually suggesting. You might (I don't know some of you from Adam), but I bet you don't. Let's find out:

Should your neighbor be able to keep his property looking like a shithouse, in your otherwise upscale neighborhood? Sadly yes

Should all drugs be legal? If so, should they be subjected to anything other than the nominal sales tax? 1.yes 2. no

Should social security be abolished (including mandatory retirement saving)? Yes, I am 26 I will not see a penny of it anyway.

Should the Department of Education be abolished? Privatize, get of rid of dirty politicians and bereaucrats

Should the Department of Homeland Securty be abolished? Absolutely

Should seatbelt and helmet laws be abolished (no conditions)? Yes

Should government recognize ANY marriage? Yes, just call gay unions something else.



That should stir the pot a little.
Not really. It is all about true freedom choice.


Damn! I think we agree on everything, except for the marriage one - I don't think they should recognize heterosexual marriages either. Still, I'm stunned.

I need to think of some harder ones. Hey, lob some questions at me.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:53:28 PM EST
The real reason is simply the bar is set extremely low and studies have shown that human behavior is highly irrational. Behavioral Psychology, Micro-Economics, Behavioral Finance have all shown that in the real world, the vast majority of people simply don't act rationally. We are "human" beings.

Sure, if we could all just be programmed to be obedient little hard working robot slaves to the specifications of the original poster, then life would JUST GREAT wouldn't it?

America was founded on "Freedom", and for most people, that "freedom" is the right to act like stupid little monkeys, smoke, drink, and drive around like a maniac. We NEED government to watch our backs and protect us not only from ourselves, but every other maniac out there. Privitization works for some thing... but DEFINITELY not all. Money and greed is a great motivating factor our economy has harnessed quite well, but without a overwatching authority like the SEC for example... things will become a mess (as they have). Money and privitization don't mix well with the intrinsically altruistic things that the Government should be doing, education, infrastructure, etc. etc...

I'm not saying we have big brother watching everything we do, but I think the balance of government size to freedom is about right at this point.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:54:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mattl:
Seriously? Drugs, guns, explosives, and self endangerment in general.


I understand some constraints to protect others (children/motorists) from the moronic, but why do you think we should stop them from self euthanising?


I feel the government has *no obligation*, moreover, *NO RIGHT* to protect me from myself. Sadly, many on this "freedom loving" board disagree with me.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:56:06 PM EST
Wow, lots of libertarians here. I'm glad to see it. It's a welcome change from the usual political atmosphere here.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:57:10 PM EST


The only illegal drug I would go along with legalizing would be weed.

You guys actually go along with these methheads that destroy their lives and their family's?have
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 2:58:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By Imbhindu:
You guys actually go along with these methheads that destroy their lives and their family's? Alot of my cop friends have made the same statement. 90% of their customers are drug users. Weed doesn't bother them that much. Most stoners are too wacked to cause much of a problem. But the methheads are demons in the flesh.


Yes, I do. The principle is called self ownership. Nobody has the authority to tell you what you can and cannot put in your own body.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 3:01:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By Imbhindu:

The only illegal drug I would go along with legalizing would be weed.

You guys actually go along with these methheads that destroy their lives and their family's? Alot of my cop friends have made the same statement. 90% of their customers are drug users. Weed doesn't bother them that much. Most stoners are too wacked to cause much of a problem. But the methheads are demons in the flesh.



Ah...common misconception. Personally, I don't want to seem ANYBODY doing meth. Hell, my favorite shirt hanging in my closet pictures an M4 and the caption "I hunt tweekers". God damn, I hate those fuckers.

I just don't think the government should concern itself with it. I'll hate it, if I want to. Tweekers can love it if they want to. Let me worry about them and their actions. I don't need anybody else worrying for me.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 3:04:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By Imbhindu:

The only illegal drug I would go along with legalizing would be weed.

You guys actually go along with these methheads that destroy their lives and their family's? Alot of my cop friends have made the same statement. 90% of their customers are drug users. Weed doesn't bother them that much. Most stoners are too wacked to cause much of a problem. But the methheads are demons in the flesh.



Relative to their legal alcohol counterparts how many drug users cause deaths other than the own. I'd feel comfortable guessing the ratio is about 3/1 at least.


Drunk drivers kill more people than most causes combined. How many her would treat a repeat offending DUIer with the same severity as someone caught with a personal consumption amount of cocaine? For the record I have not ever used hard stuff and have not smoked pot in a decade.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 3:39:34 PM EST
I believe that a 'punishment should fit the crime' doctrine is in order.

My favorite is the drunk driver punishment. Make the drunk driver drive 20K miles using a vehicle that can only be operated from in front of the front bumper, and no more than 18 inches from the roadway.

This will either scare the drunks into sobriety, or kill them when they screw up. And it will be a visible deterrent to the 'wannabees.' ("There but for the grace of God, and a lick of common sense, go I.")
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 4:06:30 PM EST
Here's a short essay on safety that was originally posted by Bane221 in alt.illuminati on 10/15/97:


Every month some new do-gooder is trying to save us from ourselves. We have so many laws, safety commissions, and government agencies to ensure our safety that it seems nearly impossible to have an accident. The problem is we need accidents, and lots of them.

Danger is nature's way of eliminating stupid people. Without safety, stupid people die in accidents. Since the dead don't produce, our species becomes progressively more intelligent (or at least less stupid). With safety, however, well-intentioned as it may be, we are devolving into half-witted mutants, because idiots, who by all rights should be dead, are spared from their rightful early graves and are free to breed even more imbeciles.

Let's do away with safety and improve our species. Take up smoking, jaywalk, drink and drive, snort cocaine, swim right after a big meal, practice unsafe sex, unbuckle your seat belt, stick something small in your ear, hold up a convenience store. Take your choice of dangerous activities and do it with gusto. Future generations will thank you.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 4:11:23 PM EST
For the most part, I believe that its not the governments responsibility.

However I do agree with seatbelt laws.

Why?

Too often people who are now severely injured could have just walked away. Does this bother me because they are injured? Ofcourse not, that was there own fault.

What bothers me is the thousands of dollars in medical bills that WE are often paying because of it.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 5:00:08 PM EST

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:
Wow, lots of libertarians here. I'm glad to see it. It's a welcome change from the usual political atmosphere here.


+1
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 5:11:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:


What bothers me is the thousands of dollars in medical bills that WE are often paying because of it.


that is not justification for stealing their right to liberty and using force to make them wear their seatbelts.

It is, however, justification for making them responsible for their medical bills, seatbelt or not.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 5:13:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
For the most part, I believe that its not the governments responsibility.

However I do agree with seatbelt laws.

Why?

Too often people who are now severely injured could have just walked away. Does this bother me because they are injured? Ofcourse not, that was there own fault.

What bothers me is the thousands of dollars in medical bills that WE are often paying because of it.


That's where the sharpened stainless steel spike comes in. No repeat customers.

Everything has become too sanitized and safe. You learn constantly--why blow the curve to favor the inept? Driving drunk and crashing into a telephone pole should be a terminal event, as should tailgating while talking on the cell phone and eating a bowl of ceral (saw this act of genius this morning). Pay attention when you drive or die. Very simple. Restraints for the passengers, but not the driver.

Granted, pure social and societal darwinism would never fly in today's soft world, but imagine if it did....Think how many fewer idiots would be wandering around, clogging the line at the post office.

GT
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 5:13:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By lobsterman:

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:
Wow, lots of libertarians here. I'm glad to see it. It's a welcome change from the usual political atmosphere here.


+1


Yeah, but stick around. The "Hannitys" around here like to try and convince us we don't know what we're talkin' 'bout.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 5:15:28 PM EST
Share your beliefs on why we or government should protect the stupid from themselves?

Too many politicians crippled or killed if we didn't.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 5:15:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
For the most part, I believe that its not the governments responsibility.

However I do agree with seatbelt laws.

Why?

Too often people who are now severely injured could have just walked away. Does this bother me because they are injured? Ofcourse not, that was there own fault.

What bothers me is the thousands of dollars in medical bills that WE are often paying because of it.


You're on the right track, but have come to the wrong conclusion. The problem is not these people getting hurt, but that we pay for it. We shouldn't have to pay for the stupidity of others.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 5:18:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Camp_Ninja:

Originally Posted By lobsterman:

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:
Wow, lots of libertarians here. I'm glad to see it. It's a welcome change from the usual political atmosphere here.


+1


Yeah, but stick around. The "Hannitys" around here like to try and convince us we don't know what we're talkin' 'bout.


Hannity is cool most of the time. He's great at arguing. I disagree with him a lot, but I still respect him.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 5:23:51 PM EST
height=8
Originally Posted By Paveway_:
Only Acts, not objects, should be illegal.

And then, only those acts that interfere with the rights of others should be illegal.

Period.

Murder is illegal. Guns, even though they can be used for muder, should be legal, they are objects. Drugs, even though they can be a motive for murder, should be legal. This includes ALL drugs. Cavet Emptor.


I totally agree!
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 5:29:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By gordon_freeman:
We NEED government to watch our backs and protect us not only from ourselves, but every other maniac out there.


BULLSHIT
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 6:57:07 PM EST
Libertarian views are mostly sweet. Especially guns. And government doing things that should be left to individuals. The only dumb one off the top of my head is ... drumroll for controversial statement... abortion. I understand freedom of choice, and pro-life and all that, but if libertarians would just stop and think about it, it seems that depriving someone of the chance to make their own bad decisions before they are born is a little hypocritical. Kind of the ultimate "I know what's best for you, because it's best for me" moment. I know some may disagree, so have at it.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 7:11:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By bear2th:
Libertarian views are mostly sweet. Especially guns. And government doing things that should be left to individuals. The only dumb one off the top of my head is ... drumroll for controversial statement... abortion. I understand freedom of choice, and pro-life and all that, but if libertarians would just stop and think about it, it seems that depriving someone of the chance to make their own bad decisions before they are born is a little hypocritical. Kind of the ultimate "I know what's best for you, because it's best for me" moment. I know some may disagree, so have at it.


Well, there goes the neighborhood.

Abortion is an ugly thing. It ends what would otherwise become a human being. That said, while I myself will never have one, I can't imagine someone being deeply enough into the shit to decide that's the only way out of it. And if someone is in that dark a place, then I surely can't justify to myself saying "Tough cookies..."

It's not a good thing, but it also shouldn't be eliminated. It should be a states' rights issue rather than a federal issue though.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 7:15:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paveway_:
Only Acts, not objects, should be illegal.

And then, only those acts that interfere with the rights of others should be illegal.

Period.

Murder is illegal. Guns, even though they can be used for muder, should be legal, they are objects. Drugs, even though they can be a motive for murder, should be legal. This includes ALL drugs. Cavet Emptor.



Couldnt have said it better paveway.
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 7:22:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paveway_:

Originally Posted By gordon_freeman:
We NEED government to watch our backs and protect us not only from ourselves, but every other maniac out there.


BULLSHIT



Seriously, WTF!
Link Posted: 10/5/2006 7:24:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By Paveway_:
Only Acts, not objects, should be illegal.

And then, only those acts that interfere with the rights of others should be illegal.

Period.

Murder is illegal. Guns, even though they can be used for muder, should be legal, they are objects. Drugs, even though they can be a motive for murder, should be legal. This includes ALL drugs. Cavet Emptor.



Sorry, if my neighbor chooses to maufacture and sell High Explosives out of his garage, he is directly impacting my well-being. This is an item which needs regulation, because I would hate to have to go kill him for endangering my family. Then I would go to jail or even face the death penalty.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top