From: Peter 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...
>>
>> "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?


Back to the point. I would care because as a humanitarian I would have, at a
minimum, the obligation to take care of those who you could not take care of
because of your habit and probably even you. IIRC in a prior posting in this
discussion you agreed that the government should take care of those who need
help through no fault of their own.

--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:KdqdndrvV51mtdzWnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "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.


OK we agree on that. Now what should be done if your smoking makes me sick,
which it does as I am highly allergic to smoke. Which way should the laws
go?
There is no such thing as separate, but equal.


--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jo2dnTB1f4iAtdzWnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "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."

Those dependant on you fall squarely within your definition. Are you saying
that those that sell, manufacture and distribute this substance, that can be
easily misused to cause harm should not be prosecuted?



--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YIednQYc-aZmvNzWnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>

> 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.
> However, the accidental gunshot rate will go up in those towns where more
> people "carry".
>
>
> But this is normal is it not? In towns where everyone drives, the commute
> time is lower, but the automobile accident rate is higher.....

Let's take a more statistically significant sample. The entire country. Have
you compared the crime rate with that of GB?


--
Peter

From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b4152e6$0$19461$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "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...
>>>
>>> "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?
>
>
> Back to the point. I would care because as a humanitarian I would have, at
> a minimum, the obligation to take care of those who you could not take
> care of because of your habit and probably even you. IIRC in a prior
> posting in this discussion you agreed that the government should take care
> of those who need help through no fault of their own.
>
> --
> Peter

People are not held down and forced to ingest harmful drugs. So, if someone
is a drug addict, it is not through, "No fault of their own". They did it to
themselves, and so why would you care? I smoked cigarettes for 29 years. I
don't blame anyone else for this.....I knew full well that it was harmful to
my health. So, it was nobody's fault but my own. When I spoke of the
government helping those who are incapacitated through no fault of their
own, I was talking about those who are born with defects.....No arms or
legs, or blind etc......Not those who were born perfectly healthy, and
choose to screw themselves up with drugs or alcohol. (or cigarettes)