From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LLKdnVY4fLTTk93WnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4b3f6337$0$19481$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:W72dneX5A8t1WaPWnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4b3ebaa4$0$31310$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>
>>>> What about laws against murder, extortion, robbery, etc.
>>>> If I deliberately and knowingly manufacture a substance that causes
>>>> harm, should that be illegal?
>>>> --
>>>> Peter
>>> Two separate questions. Laws against murder and etc. should definitely
>>> be on the books, because they impact the rest of us.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If you need or want a dangerous substance for your own experimentation,
>>> well, why should you be refused it as long as you don't harm anyone else
>>> with it? There is a talk show host in the bay area who was all for
>>> banning books that told people how to build bombs from the library. I
>>> couldn't convince her otherwise. The fact that a policeman who
>>> specializes in disarming bombs might need such a book, didn't make no
>>> never mind to her. She was for censoring books that contained specific
>>> knowledge about anything that she personally considered to be "bad" Like
>>> this would make for a "good" society........Just like banning guns would
>>> make for a "safe" society to Ray. Well, I disagree with that. I think
>>> all knowledge should be available to everyone. Who is good or bad has
>>> nothing to do with who knows what. the more intelligent the society, the
>>> less crime there will likely be in any case. Intelligent people can make
>>> a good living without resorting to crime.
>>
>> You didn't answer my question. What about the seducer, the guy that
>> knowingly induces the abuser. Please read my question again, carefully.
>> After you answer, I will have a grater understanding of your thought
>> process. We may or may not agree. But, I will certainly then know how, or
>> whether to pursue this discussion.
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
> weg9 says: Causes harm to whom? We have people working night and day
> developing things that "cause harm". They develop armament for the
> military.....Better guns, and chemical weapons......Lots of people study
> and work at, "causing harm". It is (unfortunately) a necessity in this
> modern world.
>
> It isn't the knowledge, or the development of harmful stuff that matters,
> its using it that should be illegal. You don't ban books about harmful
> stuff. You ban the people who use them to cause harm to others. And even
> then, they have to cause harm to your friends.....Its OK to harm your
> enemies. I believe that knowledge should be available to all.......Its
> only using the knowledge to cause harm to the good guys that should be
> illegal.
>
> Lets take a modern example......The possession of child pornography. Some
> states have laws against the possession of child pornography. I don't
> believe in these laws. (I think they are unconstitutional) Why? Suppose I
> am driving down a road in the country, and I see a trunk by the side of
> the road......I wonder what's in the trunk, so I stop and inspect it. It
> is locked, and I have no tools with me to open it. So, I put it in my
> trunk and drive it home to open it. On the way home, I have an accident,
> and the police and fire department show up at the scene and find the trunk
> in my trunk, and it has burst open and they discover that it is full of
> photos of child pornography......They arrest me and accuse me of
> possession of CP, when I had no idea that was what the trunk contained. I
> believe creating CP should be a crime, but not possessing it. I believe
> that I should be allowed to possess anything I please. This is part of the
> libertarian philosophy.



Still no clear and direct answer. This is a question that needs a yes or no
response.

--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RpedncBNsbOdjN3WnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4b3f66ec$0$19470$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:nIWdnaHfrs-sXaPWnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4b3eb7d7$0$19496$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:ut6dnQT77LUaMaPWnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> weg9 says: Yes. I am in favor of repealing the Marijuana laws.....I am
>>>>> in favor of repealing any laws against any and all drugs.....Everyone
>>>>> should have the right to ingest anything they have the money to pay
>>>>> for, with or without a doctor's prescription. Why would you want some
>>>>> doctor to have control over you or your body? He should be paid for
>>>>> his advice, and not for his power.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is hardly the position of the classic conservative.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yes. Bush ran up a deficit going to war...So have many other
>>>>> presidents.....Unfortunately, (or fortunately) that's one of the
>>>>> powers we give presidents. and, whenever they do, the nation is split
>>>>> over whether it is a good thing or not......Sorry about that, but it
>>>>> is not my fault.
>>>>>
>>>>> My riding a bike without a helmet only costs you money if you are
>>>>> forced to pay for my health or lack of it. In a libertarian world, you
>>>>> would not be responsible for my health care, and it wouldn't cost you
>>>>> anything if I broke my head. The law that forces hospitals to care for
>>>>> anyone who is carried in to them off the street is a liberal
>>>>> law.....It is not my doing. Today, we have the ability to identify
>>>>> anyone in a few seconds by scanning their eyeballs, fingerprints or
>>>>> DNA, or a chip implanted under their skin. We don't have to take care
>>>>> of people who are here illegally, or who who refuse to buy health
>>>>> insurance. If you want to take care of these irresponsible people,
>>>>> then do so, but please don't charge me for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> "We disagree?" about what? That the tax laws shouldn't be used to
>>>>> control people's morality? What kind of a liberal would say that?
>>>>> Would you like to live in Iran, where the government controls
>>>>> everyone's morality? then go there......I would like to control my own
>>>>> morality, thanks. If I want to drink or smoke myself to death, than
>>>>> why would you care? And, be careful.....Pretty soon the senate will
>>>>> get around to preventing you from doing something that you would like
>>>>> to do, and stop it by taxing the hell out of it....what will you do
>>>>> then? Maybe they will decide that pastrami sandwiches or egg cr�mes
>>>>> are bad for you. Anything that most of them don't regularly do, as a
>>>>> matter of fact.....They don't like to rice motorcycles without their
>>>>> helmets, so it is easy for them to make a law against it.......I don't
>>>>> see them making any laws forcing you to wear a helmet on the golf
>>>>> course......You can get a broken head there, too. I wonder why not? Is
>>>>> it because golf is an old geezers game, and a lot of them play
>>>>> it......Oh, no.....That can't be the reason......:^)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You obviously know nothing about golf,
>>>>
>>>> Tiger the Geezer.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Peter
>>>
>>> weg9 says: I know that I've never seen anyone on a golf course
>>> wearing a helmet.
>>
>> Not even the workers dong repair work? :-)
>>
>>>
>>> And, I am not a "classic conservative". I am not even a conservative. I
>>> am a libertarian.
>>
>> Your postings have demonstrated your lack of adherence to conservative
>> principles.
>>
>> For an interesting read see:
>>
>> http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/LIBERTAR.htm
>>
>> How consistent is that article with your views?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
> weg9 says: Yes, the article is quite consistent with my views. But
> sometimes it is difficult to decide exactly what the libertarian view
> is......If, by exercising some right or other, I inadvertently take away
> someone else's right, then perhaps government should have the right to
> intervene and not allow my exercise of that right, and it is not always
> easy to make those decisions, so some compromise is usually
> necessary.......It is an imperfect world, even for us
> libertarians.......:^)


That's exactly the idea. When your perceived rights conflict with my
perceived rights, who resolves the issue.

Let's take it one step further. What happens when your perceived rights
necessarily, not inadvertently, conflicts with my perceived rights.


--
Peter

From: Jeff R. on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LLKdnVY4fLTTk93WnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> Lets take a modern example......The possession of child pornography. Some
> states have laws against the possession of child pornography. I don't
> believe in these laws. (I think they are unconstitutional) Why? Suppose I
> am driving down a road in the country, and I see a trunk by the side of
> the road......I wonder what's in the trunk, so I stop and inspect it. It
> is locked, and I have no tools with me to open it. So, I put it in my
> trunk and drive it home to open it. On the way home, I have an accident,
> and the police and fire department show up at the scene and find the trunk
> in my trunk, and it has burst open and they discover that it is full of
> photos of child pornography......They arrest me and accuse me of
> possession of CP, when I had no idea that was what the trunk contained. I
> believe creating CP should be a crime, but not possessing it. I believe
> that I should be allowed to possess anything I please. This is part of the
> libertarian philosophy.

Silly story.
Suppose the trunk had been full of crystal meth/crack cocaine/heroin.

Does that constitute an argument to legalise - or even *possess* - said
"pharmaceuticals"?

--
Jeff R.
"Honest, Officer! I thought it was icing sugar"


From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b40db00$1$19493$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:LLKdnVY4fLTTk93WnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b3f6337$0$19481$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:W72dneX5A8t1WaPWnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:4b3ebaa4$0$31310$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>
>>>>> What about laws against murder, extortion, robbery, etc.
>>>>> If I deliberately and knowingly manufacture a substance that causes
>>>>> harm, should that be illegal?

weg9 says: No. It should not be illegal to deliberately and knowingly
manufacturer a substance that causes harm.

It should be illegal to take any substance that is capable of causing harm
if misused, and misuse it to harm someone else who doesn't want to be so
harmed.

Does that answer your question? The answer is "No."

From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b40dbe7$0$19464$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:RpedncBNsbOdjN3WnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b3f66ec$0$19470$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:nIWdnaHfrs-sXaPWnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:4b3eb7d7$0$19496$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ut6dnQT77LUaMaPWnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> weg9 says: Yes. I am in favor of repealing the Marijuana laws.....I
>>>>>> am in favor of repealing any laws against any and all
>>>>>> drugs.....Everyone should have the right to ingest anything they have
>>>>>> the money to pay for, with or without a doctor's prescription. Why
>>>>>> would you want some doctor to have control over you or your body? He
>>>>>> should be paid for his advice, and not for his power.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is hardly the position of the classic conservative.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. Bush ran up a deficit going to war...So have many other
>>>>>> presidents.....Unfortunately, (or fortunately) that's one of the
>>>>>> powers we give presidents. and, whenever they do, the nation is split
>>>>>> over whether it is a good thing or not......Sorry about that, but it
>>>>>> is not my fault.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My riding a bike without a helmet only costs you money if you are
>>>>>> forced to pay for my health or lack of it. In a libertarian world,
>>>>>> you would not be responsible for my health care, and it wouldn't cost
>>>>>> you anything if I broke my head. The law that forces hospitals to
>>>>>> care for anyone who is carried in to them off the street is a liberal
>>>>>> law.....It is not my doing. Today, we have the ability to identify
>>>>>> anyone in a few seconds by scanning their eyeballs, fingerprints or
>>>>>> DNA, or a chip implanted under their skin. We don't have to take care
>>>>>> of people who are here illegally, or who who refuse to buy health
>>>>>> insurance. If you want to take care of these irresponsible people,
>>>>>> then do so, but please don't charge me for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "We disagree?" about what? That the tax laws shouldn't be used to
>>>>>> control people's morality? What kind of a liberal would say that?
>>>>>> Would you like to live in Iran, where the government controls
>>>>>> everyone's morality? then go there......I would like to control my
>>>>>> own morality, thanks. If I want to drink or smoke myself to death,
>>>>>> than why would you care? And, be careful.....Pretty soon the senate
>>>>>> will get around to preventing you from doing something that you would
>>>>>> like to do, and stop it by taxing the hell out of it....what will you
>>>>>> do then? Maybe they will decide that pastrami sandwiches or egg
>>>>>> cr�mes are bad for you. Anything that most of them don't regularly
>>>>>> do, as a matter of fact.....They don't like to rice motorcycles
>>>>>> without their helmets, so it is easy for them to make a law against
>>>>>> it.......I don't see them making any laws forcing you to wear a
>>>>>> helmet on the golf course......You can get a broken head there, too.
>>>>>> I wonder why not? Is it because golf is an old geezers game, and a
>>>>>> lot of them play it......Oh, no.....That can't be the reason......:^)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You obviously know nothing about golf,
>>>>>
>>>>> Tiger the Geezer.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>> weg9 says: I know that I've never seen anyone on a golf course
>>>> wearing a helmet.
>>>
>>> Not even the workers dong repair work? :-)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And, I am not a "classic conservative". I am not even a conservative. I
>>>> am a libertarian.
>>>
>>> Your postings have demonstrated your lack of adherence to conservative
>>> principles.
>>>
>>> For an interesting read see:
>>>
>>> http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/LIBERTAR.htm
>>>
>>> How consistent is that article with your views?
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter
>>
>> weg9 says: Yes, the article is quite consistent with my views. But
>> sometimes it is difficult to decide exactly what the libertarian view
>> is......If, by exercising some right or other, I inadvertently take away
>> someone else's right, then perhaps government should have the right to
>> intervene and not allow my exercise of that right, and it is not always
>> easy to make those decisions, so some compromise is usually
>> necessary.......It is an imperfect world, even for us
>> libertarians.......:^)
>
>
> That's exactly the idea. When your perceived rights conflict with my
> perceived rights, who resolves the issue.
>
> Let's take it one step further. What happens when your perceived rights
> necessarily, not inadvertently, conflicts with my perceived rights.
>
>
> --
> Peter
When this happens, (and it happens all the time) the congress makes laws
that address it, and the courts interpret those laws, and resolve conflicts
over it and over those laws that the congress makes. Do not confuse
libertarianism with anarchy. I am not an anarchist. I believe that some form
of representative government is necessary.