From: Bill Graham on

"Jeff R." <contact(a)this.ng> wrote in message
news:4b412776$0$3003$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "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"
>
weg9 says: Yes. It certainly does. As a libertarian, I believe all drugs
should be legal anyway. So we are already talking about something that is
anti-libertarian to begin with. IOW, we are already halfway liberal with the
anti drug laws that are on the books right now, so it is impossible to talk
libertarianism when there is already no chance of it on the horizon. In my
libertarian world, there would be no laws against, "Making, possessing,
using and killing oneself with crystal meth or any other drug, It's my
body.....Why would you care what I do with it?

From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>weg9 says: My answer: - Equal taxation across the board. It shouldn't
>matter how you earn your living. Legal or illegal. If you earn money, it
>should be taxed, and at the same rate as everyone else who works and earns
>it.

So someone who earns $40,000 should pay $10000 and try to live on just
$30,000 while someone who earns $1,000,000 should pay $250,000 and
manage quite confortably on $750,000.

Class warfare. Elistist snobbery. Hatred of the poor.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>weg9 says: You don't need the data from that town. You can just compare
>the data from those towns where carrying a gun is legal, and those where it
>is not, and you will see that carrying a gun reduces the crime rate.

The crime rate in the US is much higher than it is in Canada or the UK
or in western Europe.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: bob on

>"Commie Martyrs High School"

>
Porgy Tirebiter!

Oh, and 'Ray Fischer' is still a bigot.
From: Jeff R. on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:z7GdnRM9GNEAstzWnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Jeff R." <contact(a)this.ng> wrote in message
> news:4b412776$0$3003$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> 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.
>>
> weg9 says: Yes. It certainly does. As a libertarian, I believe all
> drugs should be legal anyway. So we are already talking about something
> that is anti-libertarian to begin with. IOW, we are already halfway
> liberal with the anti drug laws that are on the books right now, so it is
> impossible to talk libertarianism when there is already no chance of it on
> the horizon. In my libertarian world, there would be no laws against,
> "Making, possessing, using and killing oneself with crystal meth or any
> other drug, It's my body.....Why would you care what I do with it?

Wow.
Consider myself spanked.
That's a little further than even I am prepared to go.

OK then (trying to salvage cred, here)
How a bout if the trunk contained the *means to produce* child pornography
(cameras, mag. cards, lights etc) and the data on the cards indicated many
sessions of child pornography production.

Surely that wouldn't imply the necessity to decriminalise the *possession*
of such gear?
Would it?
Should it?

--
Jeff R.
(resisting the urge to mention road rules)