Ban Tabacco and Alcohol!

[Too Many Choices!?]

let me be more specific....

College is a right in that it could not be denied me for any reason other than not meeting entry requirements.....Not race, religion, sex, or hairstyle

 

[The Rabbi]

Gordon Fink,
I looked up the doctrine and found one impenetrable essay
http://www.anti-state.com/mallone/mallone2.html

If that makes sense to you than I want you've been smoking.

I hold by my belief that Libertarians are immoral. And I see it every day on these boards. Just the number of people who are perfectly OK with the notion of people dying on the street because "they did it to themselves" should be an alarm to anyone over the age of 20.
I will add that there is no "right" to be left alone. There certainly isnt in statute and even in general I dont know where this comes from. What proof is there that such a thing exists?
Further, I have trouble with the idea that society consists of millions of people wandering around having no interaction with each other. It isnt true and we all know that. What one person does has effect on everyone, those closest to him more directly and those further less directly. But the effect is there. One consequence of this is that morality ends up being a "mob" morality, with the individual chasing the lowest common element. It is for this reason I am opposed to both the abortion and to same-sex marriage. Their opponents have a point: the environment created by those two things is toxic to the well-being of republic.
One point often made is "choice"-the idea that people choose what actions to do or not do. While I agree this is so theoretically, in practice there is much less free-will than people think. Look at what you are wearing right now and try to explain how those items came into your wardrobe and why you chose them this morning. A lot of the reason (in some cases all the reason) is that someone else has validated that choice. Other forms of behavior are no less susceptible to this.

 

[The Rabbi]

College is a right in that it could not be denied me for any reason other than not meeting entry requirements.....Not race, religion, sex, or hairstyle

So you are saying that if you had absolutely no money then someone would have to pony up to buy your books, room, board, etc? I hope you dont mean that.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Paying your own tuition, books, room and board......

Are ALL part of the requirements ......Some need help which is why they make grants and financial aid available though

I have a right to bear arms.....That doesn't mean I have a right to free ammo though .....Your logical leeps are getting bigger and bigger

 

[The Rabbi]

Are ALL part of the requirements ......Some need help which is why they make grants and financial aid available though

Who do you think pays for those?

I would be more than happy to remove all government subsidy from higher education and let the schools get competitive.
But under the "right" scenario then yes, anyone who qualified for college could automatically demand that someone else support him in going there. Now you see what I mean by rights becoming entitlements.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

We are drifting a little but I see your point somewhat......

The answer is simple low interest loans like millions take out against future earnings or something.......In a totaly fair system government intervention is not needed.....

Now to get back on topic...There are already laws about dui/public intoxication/minor in possession so what is the point of making it illegal to "possess"(for your own use) not "manufacture"(to make and sell for profit) drugs or alcohol, please answer me that..... HINT: It is moral superiority complex

 

[Control Group]

I will add that there is no "right" to be left alone. There certainly isnt in statute and even in general I dont know where this comes from. What proof is there that such a thing exists?

This, then, is a fundamental point of disagreement, and I don't think there's any getting past it. If you believe that you are not sacrosanct in yourself, that you have no more right to not be punched in the face than I have a right to punch you in the face regardless of society's existence, then we share no common ground on which to debate.

This basic point will determine whether one places greater value on society - as you seem to - or on the individuals who make up that society - as I do. I believe society's only value comes from the benefits it provides to its members; that society in and of itself is valueless and powerless. You, I am guessing, will argue that such a distinction is meaningless in reality, since the benefits provided by society are so pervasive and necessary that it cannot be separated from the individuals making it up.

This is not an uncommon point of view. It is the old armored car example: an armored car is carrying millions in gold to a bank. Which is more valuable, the armored car or the gold? Your argument, I believe, would be that it's the armored car, because without it, the gold will never arrive at the bank, and is therefore without value to the recipient. My argument would be that, while the armored car is necessary to the gold's value, it is still the gold which is the repository of value.

*shrug*

To my knowledge, there's no good way to "prove" either perspective is right. It is a matter of belief. I am afraid, then, that there is no hope for resolution to this conversation, and we will proceed to go our separate intellectual ways.

Somehow I doubt this is a large tragedy in your eyes.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why the heck did you ever take the moniker "Rabbi"? Surely a good Jew (like me) could never subscribe to the view you have advanced here since it is totally against our philosophy.

Master Blaster,
I have to wonder where you learned about Judaism. Actually the religion is even more restrictive than what we have been discussing. You have no rights, period. there isnt even a word for the concept in Hebrew. Further, society has the power to compel you to do to the right thing and to execute you for aberrant behavior. Tough stuff, I know. But it is an interesting contrast to what we see here. In Judaism the assumption is that G-d knows what the perfect society looks like and we have to carry that out. If we disagree then we are simply wrong, since there is an absolute right and wrong.
One of the tenets of Libertariansim seems to be that there is no right or wrong, only right for me and wrong for me.

 

[The Rabbi]

This, then, is a fundamental point of disagreement, and I don't think there's any getting past it. If you believe that you are not sacrosanct in yourself, that you have no more right to not be punched in the face than I have a right to punch you in the face regardless of society's existence, then we share no common ground on which to debate.

Good post, CG, and I appreciate your effort in this.
One of the proofs is that precisely in the absence of society rights do not exist. If you take a lawless place like Somalia, my right to punch you in the face rests on the fact that I am bigger, stronger, and better armed than you. That is the sole source of right in the absence of society.
Since there is always somebody bigger stronger and better armed then society banded together to enforce rights, as a benefit to living in society. You surrender part of your autonomy in return for protection.
This is the source of my insistence that rights do not exist in a vacuum: if we were in Somalia (or some other lawless place) and I punched you in the face then according to you I have violated your rights. And I say, big whoop. It has no practical difference since the only real rights are ones that are enforceable and the ones that are enforceable are determined by society as a whole.

 

[pax]

CG ~

Actually, the fundamental point of disagreement is that you both failed to define your terms at any point during the argument, and that The Rabbi is congenitally unable to choose one definition and stick with it. As long as you let him keep equivocating on terms, you'll never get anywhere -- just keep dancing in circles as you've been doing.

pax

 

[Firethorn]

Redneck, the rest would be pretty much considered "death by natural causes".

The body does eventually fail.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, the fundamental point of disagreement is that you both failed to define your terms at any point during the argument, and that The Rabbi is congenitally unable to choose one definition and stick with it. As long as you let him keep equivocating on terms, you'll never get anywhere -- just keep dancing in circles as you've been doing.

I think I have defined what I mean ad nauseam. I have presented very well reasoned arguments for what I think and they are based on long years in reading philosophy and coming in contact with some of the brightest people working in this field.
If you think that means I am equivocating then I'd suggest you havent been reading my posts and if you have then you havent (and maybe cannot) understand what I am writing.

 

[Gordon Fink]

I hold by my belief that Libertarians are immoral.… Just the number of people who are perfectly OK with the notion of people dying on the street because “they did it to themselves†should be an alarm to anyone.…

So you would prefer to see the irresponsible supported at taxpayer expense, though you were railing against just such “entitlements†a little while earlier?

The non-initiation principle is really very simple. I do not have the right to initiate harm against another person. If my actions harm no one, then I am free to do them. A well-known rabbi from Nazareth taught this principle long ago, and Confucius spoke of it in ancient China as well.

~G. Fink

 

[cgv69]

That's counterintuitive. That suggests that laws to curb something will result in more of that activity, i.e. that laws and penalties have no effect on human behavior. That simply defies common sense and observed phenomena.

What defies common sense to me is where you got that from what I wrote? That is not at all what I wrote, suggested or implied.

What I was trying to communicate is this, when a gov’t bans something or makes it illegal, they do not eliminate it. Making some “thing†illegal will not make that “thing†undesirable or unobtainable. All it does is drive that “thing†or activity underground and for the most part, out of their control.

I will give you a perfect example of something I have personally experienced and that IMO, demonstrates how in ineffective banning, as opposed to regulating something really is.

When I was in HS (mid 80’s), I could go to school any day of the week and buy just about any kind of drug I wanted. Marijuana, Cocaine, LSD you name it but do you know what the hardest thing for me to get my hands on? Beer!

(Just so you don’t jump to any false assumptions, I did not go to some inner city school with a higher drop out than graduation rate. I grew up in an upper middle class town where the majority of students graduated and went on to college.)

Yes, Alcohol and Drugs are both illegal for a minors to buy or posses so what’s the difference? Alcohol is legal to sell by licensed individuals to legally aged adults. It makes no financial sense for person making a living legally selling alcohol legally to risk their license and livelihood by selling to a minor.

On the other hand, it is 100% against the law for anybody to own or sell illegal narcotics. Still people become dealers all the time because for them, the financial gain outweighs the risk. Seeing how money is the motivation, these people do not generally get picky about who they sell to. I saw first hand how the governments attempt to control the sale of illegal drugs actually made it easier for a minor to buy.

As an adult, illegal drugs would not be easier then alcohol for me to buy but I’m pretty sure it still wouldn’t be too hard for me to buy either if I so desired.

If I recall correctly, they estimate there are ~200 million guns in the US. My guess is much less then 5% of those guns are illegally owned or sold and even a smaller percentage is brought into the country illegally. Why? Because most people can buy and own guns legally just as easily and inexpensively as they can illegally. So, in most cases, there is very little incentive or reward to justify the risk of being caught.

Now, let pretend the gov’t was able to enact a complete ban on all firearms. History has shown that the story would drastically change. Do you really think that everybody would turn in all of their guns? You can bet the thousands, if not millions of US citizens, most of whom have never broken a law in their life will withhold at least one firearm. So, where the gov’t currently regulates roughly 95% of the firearms in this country, they would be down to what? 50-80%. In effect, they would have actually managed to lose control over a fairly large number of firearms. You would also have to consider the drastic increase in the illegal importation and black market that such a new law would create.

To answer you comment above, no laws and penalties do not typically change anybody’s desire to do or have some “thing†but it may alter their willingness to. Making some “thing†illegal may be enough to cause a number of people to restrain from doing\having “it†but some people will choose not to. Those people will become criminals\law breakers for what may be the first time in their life.

There are also a small percentage of people who wouldn’t have cared less one way or the other but will suddenly become interested in “it†because “it†is now illegal. Look how many people rushed out to buy AR’s and AK’s 10 years ago when the government told us we couldn’t have them anymore. It is human nature to want what you can not have. Just ask Adam and Eve.

 

[The Rabbi]

People make a calculation of how much they want the thing, what the penalties are when they get caught with it, and how likely they are to get caught.

If what you say were true, then there would be illegal machine gun conversions all over the place. There arent. And the reason is the Feds impose a penalty that most people do not consider something they could deal with if caught. It helps that most of the people who would buy one actually have something to lose.
I'd love to have a full-auto AR or something without shelling out the megabucks required. And if the penalty for owning one was a $25 fine I might. But 30 years in jail and $50k fine are a good enough deterrent for me.
Look at how much people go out of the way on these boards with, e.g. Mak-90 conversions to pistol grips. The law mandates some absurd number of parts must be US-made. The law is stupid but more to the point, unenforceable on the level of individual citizen. And yet people here spend good money to be in compliance because even though the chance of getting caught is slim to none, the penalties if they do are unacceptable to them.
All of this suggests that the calculus made needs to be changed. You cannot make the drug less desirable (although the experiment with Paraquat seems to have worked). So you have to both increase the penalties and increase the likelihood of getting caught.
If you get caught with drugs in Saudi Arabia or Singapore the results arent much fun. Those countries have very low levels of drug abuse. Not none, but very low.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you would prefer to see the irresponsible supported at taxpayer expense, though you were railing against just such “entitlements†a little while earlier?

No I would prefer to see the problem not materialize at all. But I would accept the burden of support over stepping over dead/dying bodies ala India.

The non-initiation principle is really very simple. I do not have the right to initiate harm against another person. If my actions harm no one, then I am free to do them. A well-known rabbi from Nazareth taught this principle long ago, and Confucius spoke of it in ancient China as well.

1) That is an argument for pacifism. If I have a dim opinion of Libertarianism, it pales in comparison to how I feel about pacifism.
2) How do you know what affect your actions have on others? It is a basic principle that you dont know. If you engage in something which is bad for you then it is very likely having a bad effect on those around you as well. The converse is also true, btw.
And,incidentally, invoking a certain alleged individual allegedly from Nazareth will not win debate points with me. But you knew that.

 

[cgv69]

You seem to be making a lot of baseless assumptions

If what you say were true, then there would be illegal machine gun conversions all over the place. There arent.

What is your source? How do you know how many illegal full auto conversations exist? Because you don't hear\read about them? That doesn't mean anything. I would tend to believe most people doing these don't spend a lot of time in the Internet talking about it or going to public ranges and showing everybody. The facts are people do illegally convert weapons to full auto all the time. You can find information all over the place giving you step by step instructions on how to do it and you can go to shows like Knob Creek and get all the parts you need or, as it seems most of these guys do, make your own. There was a case not too long ago about a guy who got busted with a few home made fully auto weapons. He appealed the conviction and won because he did not try to sell it nor did he cross state lines with it. The court the overturned that conviction determined that simply making an fully auto weapon for your own use in and of itself does not violate any federal laws.

I'd love to have a full-auto AR or something without shelling out the megabucks required. And if the penalty for owning one was a $25 fine I might. But 30 years in jail and $50k fine are a good enough deterrent for me.

Thats you. You do not speak for everybody. For me, it's not just a mater of 50K and\or jail time. It's an evaluation of the pros and cons. In your example, I would have to decide if the risk of 50K fine and jail time was worth the risk in order to enjoy a fully auto weapon vs. just having a legal semi-auto with no risks. For me in that situation, I would agree with you, it's not worth it.

But if we are talking about a complete ban of firearms? I then have to decide if giving up all of my firearms in order to eliminate any risk of going to jail is worth leaving myself and my family unprotected as well as allowing my personal beliefs to be stomped on and my rights to be thrown out the window. Maybe that's an easy choice for you but not for me. You know what they say, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Look at how much people go out of the way on these boards with, e.g. Mak-90 conversions to pistol grips.

Again, you seem to be basing your arguments off of what you read on the Internet. You need to remember that only a small percentage of firearms enthusiasts post on Internet forums and I'm sure the majority of the people who knowingly ignore such stupid laws don't go around talking about it on the Internet. I have personally seen a number of people ignore that particular law so I know it happens. Whether they do it knowingly or not, I can't say for a sure?

If you get caught with drugs in Saudi Arabia or Singapore the results arent much fun. Those countries have very low levels of drug abuse. Not none, but very low.

Well unless you live in one of these places I don't know how you think you are qualified to say what the level of drug abuse is and or what the reasoning is for that level? Just reporting a low percentage of people getting convicted for drug abuse\dealing does not mean it is happening less. Maybe the numbers are not being reported honestly? Maybe people in those places are more careful about getting caught? Maybe the law enforcement agencies there devote less time to "catching" these people? Maybe their culture and education system makes illegal drugs much more taboo and less appealing than our society does? Without a detailed knowledge as to the answers to those questions you can not make the assumption that less people do it simply because the penalties are higher.

I'm willing to bet there are less people having sex with livestock in Florida than Montana and I don't think it has anything to do with Florida being tougher on that crime.

I guess there really isn't very many drug dealers in Columbia because court records do not show many arrests\convictions?

If your logic was correct then why does Texas have a higher murder rate than say Maine even though Texas has a death penalty [Ron White voice] and uses it! [/Ron White voice] where as Maine does not? Because there are a lot more factors to consider as to why a person does or does not commit a crime then simply what the penalty is.

On the other hand, your making my argument for me. Even with very strict penalties, people who want to do some "thing" still do it, they are just forced to do it illegally an risk the penalties.

 

[Selfdfenz]

Because there are a lot more factors to consider as to why a person does or does not commit a crime then simply what the penalty is.

The penalty aspect of commiting a crime cannot be disconnected from the certainty or lack there of of being caught it seems to me. Package deal.
I kind of agree with Rabbi in that the illegal manufacture of a fully automatic or CIII type weapon seems absurd to me because the penalty for getting caught is unacceptably high and, in my opinion ,chances of getting caught are high also. I for one respect the BATF's ability to nab people that do this sooner or later.
Having said that, I also agree that some % of the World's scofflaws and/or nimrods will make something illegal. They are the exception to the rule however ,and while I have no data on the subject I think the number is low relative to the population in general and even low in relation to gun owners.
That proves, I guess, that stupidity qualifies as one of the "factors" involved in the metrics of engaging in crime.

Perhaps I don't travel in the right circles but I'll happily stay as far from that particular group of gene pool dilutants as possible. I have no use for illegal products or practices or the individuals that fancy either.

S-

 

[Gordon Fink]

That is an argument for pacifism.…

No. It is not. Pacifism would mean never doing unto others, whereas the non-initiation of force expects self-defense.

But I forget that the majority of High Road members support gun control when it’s not aimed directly at them so are thus closet tyrants themselves.

~G. Fink

 

[The Rabbi]

As someone who had relatives murdered while others "did not want to initiate harm against other persons" I have a big problem with this. But I think it points up the overwhelming trend in Libertarianism (and why it is so popular): "I've got mine, everyone else go jump in a lake." That has been a consistent theme from the Libertarian side. I find the narcissism of the attitude just shocking, and I am not easily shocked.

But I forget that the majority of High Road members support gun control when it’s not aimed directly at them so are thus closet tyrants themselves.

 

[DRZinn]

One of the tenets of Libertariansim seems to be that there is no right or wrong, only right for me and wrong for me.

Absolutely, completely wrong.

And as for the non-initiation principle, it allows for self-defense and, in my view at least, the defense of others.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Gordon Fink

I agree with your sentiment; if not with your words....
Many here are less than enthusiastic about other peoples rights, and in if fact their own right,to own NFA items.....Otherwise we would have kicked the BATF outta the gun control portion of their mission statement long ago.Putting that considerable budget to more pressing issues.... Please Lord Let Them HAVE EYEs TO SEE ..With such a small number of NFA weapons out there used in crime, isn't the registry at best, a large waiste of tax payer money and manpower ......And at worst, it is a violation of the highest law of the land, an afront to freedom, and a registry of non-felon, non-violent offender, non alcohol and drug abusers, non terrorists and no longer private citizens

 

[Russ]

As long as alcohol and cigs are legal there will always be those that abuse these substances. I know from personal experience what cigarettes do to people. Both of my parents died of lung cancer because of it. However. My mother was 81 and my dad was 78. My children who are now 21 and 18 saw my parents die of lung cancer. They will never smoke becuase that is not a good way to die, I guarantee. I don't know of a good way to die but lack of oxygen is not an option I would choose.

My parents opinion, both born in the early part of the 20th century, said they enjoyed smoking and too bad if anyone else didn't like it. It's not like they lived short lives. I think I will be lucky to get close to either of them.

I didn't like it that they smoked but that was their option. I used to smoke many years ago. Only for about 3 years. I was in the Southern California mountains one day at 21 years old and I found myself huffing an puffing getting up a hill. I was an athelete and this was a real wake up call. I quit then and have never touched a cigarette since.

For those who have smoked for 20 plus years or so, quitting is a very difficult poposition. I'm not saying one can't but the longer you go with it, the harder it gets to stop.

If we make this illegal, it will be like prohibition. That law made things worse IMHO. We have Capone and some say the Kennedy fortune. After all Fitzgerald (that's where the F. in JFK's name came from) still makes whiskey. I won't go into the political ramifications of this with JFK and his ilk. Water under the bridge at this point.

Do the same to cigarettes like the did wih booze during prohibition and you will have a similar problem. If the morons that we elect do that, I can think of numerous new illegal business opportunities that would yield billions like it did for some very prominent families that now run the country.

Personal choice. My advice is worth nothing but here it is. DO NOT SMOKE OR DRINK ALCOHOL EVER. The results are almost always negative.

 

[wasrjoe]

Im sure you disagree with me but lets look at the flip side. Without specifically enumerating rights then suddenly everything becomes one. And they are usually entitlements. Thus we hear about a "right" to college education. A "right" to health care and so on. My right of freedom of religion and protest will conflict with your right to have an abortion. In the end you get chaos and anarchy. That isnt good for anyone.

The right to have a glass of whine quietly in one's home and the "right" to a college education are completely different concepts. I believe that one has the right to personal freedom - basically, do as you wish as long as you harm no one. (Defining harm is difficult, so let's leave that out of the discussion for now.) A "right" to a college education means that others have the duty to assist you in completing a college education.

Forgive me if this has already been covered in this thread. I usually read threads the whole way through before posting, but today's a lazy day.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Turn a phrase.....

As long as people can (select your "Right" of choice, or favorite), there will always be those that abuse(your "Right" of choice, or favorite)....
If you are simply stating facts then I will agree with yours if you will agree with mine ... Meaning you can't regulate what people do with their freedom......It is legal to smoke, some will "over do it"( even using the most lenient of standards). Having kids is a right, I think ? But some will "over do it"
Freedom of speech is a right ,but as always, some will "over do it"

Only question should be who decides what is "over doing it" ? Should it be the lords and ladies of Congress?.....How about the state senate?....Or should the individual decide what is right for him/her WITHIN the law.......What government should do is set what a legal PUBLIC limit of intoxication is. Be it federal or state.....If it is unable to be determined how "impaired" a subject is, obviously they are functioning well enought to not blatantly be in violation of the limit......I say we got bigger fish to fry and let em walk unless doing something else illegal....PS Intoxication needs to be more closely linked to the actual reflex times and judgement not "side walk ballet"(but until technology can save us again dance you intoxicated Borishnikovs, dance) Boy I bet i just peeved somebody off by butchering the guys name, but they'll get over it..... )