From: Bill Graham on

"krishnananda" <krishna(a)divine-life.in.invalid> wrote in message
news:krishna-1DF9CB.00101904012010(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <as2dnWiqfqQo8tzWnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>,
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b416ae0$0$19464$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> > "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> > news:kJednYMQlIhj-tzWnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>> >>
>> >> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:4b4161ae$1$19469$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> >>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >>> news:F8KdnfqlqNUKx9zWnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "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)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I was talking about those dependant on the drug addict.
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Peter
>> >>
>> >> I can't help those who are dependent on the drug addict, any more than
>> >> I
>> >> can help those who suffer for the choices others make on their behalf.
>> >> I
>> >> am responsible for myself and mine. I am willing to help those God
>> >> screws
>> >> up, but I am unwilling to help those that other people screw up. If
>> >> the
>> >> liberals come up with some plan to sterilize and/or control the lives
>> >> of
>> >> those others, then I might reconsider, but until then, I will only
>> >> help
>> >> the ones that are harmed by God or fate.
>> >
>> >
>> > Where is your once of humanity. Now you are changing your argument. So
>> > when you said you would help innocents it is not true. What would you
>> > do
>> > with the 2 year old child of an addict?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Peter
>>
>> What the government does right now. Child services takes them away, and
>> puts
>> them in a foster home, while the, "addict" is put in prison. Many of
>> these
>> children, raised by foster parents who could care less about them, end up
>> as
>> criminals themselves, Death row is populated mainly by people who were
>> raised without love. The only difference I would make is that I would
>> provide some incentives for these people to not have children.....I would
>> support their habit if they allowed themselves to be sterilized.
>
> Incentive: In economics and sociology, an incentive is any factor
> (financial or non-financial) that enables or motivates a particular
> course of action, or counts as a reason for preferring one choice to the
> alternatives. It is an expectation that encourages people to behave in a
> certain way.
>
> Bill's "Libertarian" Incentive: let me do what I want and if someone
> else dares to do something which might possibly affect my pocketbook,
> such as become an addict unable to care for children, then let the
> government force them into being sterilized. And reverse the charges, so
> I-Me-Mine don't have to shell out one pinched penny.
>
> Some libertarian!
>
> Sounds much more like a neo-con republican hypocrite to me.

weg9 says: I don't see your problem. We are all paying through the nose
right now and getting nothing for it. Our police are spending like half
their time chasing down the drug addicts and the problem is getting worse
every year. the cops are losing. and they are losing to the mob who are
making a bundle selling this stuff on the street. If you legalized it, and
gave it away for free, (or as an incentive) then the first thing that would
happen, is the criminals would go out of business. There would be no
incentive for them to sell the stuff when the price was at or near zero. The
cops could fire 50% of their force, which would save the taxpayers a bundle
and more than pay for us to give the stupid drugs away for free to those
that were already hooked. There would be no more people hooked, because the
mob would have no more incentive to get them hooked.....No money in it, so
no mob. IOW, this is a problem that is feeding itself. In the old days,
there were no laws against drugs, and very few people were hooked on them.
Today, with all our anti-drug laws, there is a huge problem. Don't you see
the pattern in all this? I certainly do.

From: HEMI-Powered on
NameHere added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

> Long ago I pondered how it would be if every person on earth was
> given a nuclear bomb as a birth-present to carry with them to
> use at any time during their life. Imagine how much more
> respectfully everyone would treat each other their whole lives.
> No silly government control-freaks passing silly laws as their
> own imaginary security-blankets, governments and country borders
> would become useless human inventions, no neighbor telling you
> what you can or cannot do unless they themselves wanted to die
> with you. Pure freedom or pure annihilation. Your choice.
>
> 'Twould make for an interesting sci-fi book or movie if nothing
> else.
>
There was a sci fi movie in the 1950s of something close to your
scenario. Can't think of the name, though.

Your idea about people being a whole LOT more friendly if they
thought that everyone had a nuke actually IS played out today in
states where it is relatively easy to get a CCW (Carry Concealed
Weapon) permit for a gun. One never knows if the guy you're pissing
off has a Dirty Harry and can blow you away.

The thing I've never understood about gun nuts is why they WANT to
CONCEAL their gun. If the idea is self-defense, the most oft used
reason for wanted to own a gun, why not carry it on your hip in
plain sight so as to scare away the bad guys?

--
Jerry, aka HP

"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas
Prices and Solving Our Energy Crisis" - Newt Gingrich
From: David J. Littleboy on

"krishnananda" <krishna(a)divine-life.in.invalid> wrote:
>
> Bill's "Libertarian" Incentive: let me do what I want and if someone
> else dares to do something which might possibly affect my pocketbook,
> such as become an addict unable to care for children, then let the
> government force them into being sterilized. And reverse the charges, so
> I-Me-Mine don't have to shell out one pinched penny.
>
> Some libertarian!

No. He's got the libertarian party line down pat. There's nothing
un-libertarian about Bill.

> Sounds much more like a neo-con republican hypocrite to me.

Exactly. Libertarians are neo-con republican hypocrites without the religion
and the moralizing. The basic idea of the "philosophy" is that the rich and
powerful have the right to use and abuse their wealth and power in any way
they want. Read Ayn Rand; really, it's so horrendously bad writing that it's
quite entertaining. "Social responsibility" is anathema to libertarians.

Libertarianism sounds good for the first two syllables, but it's seriously
sick from then on in.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


From: HEMI-Powered on
NameHere added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

>>Same here: "Muslim Radicals"
>
> Neither of you have thought this through very well. Things
> change when everyone is truly equal. Nobody would have need to
> be a suicide bomber. Any faction or portion of society anywhere
> on the globe that demanded more than another would be instantly
> annihilated, by self or by others. The only genetics left of the
> human race would be those that would be intelligent enough to
> know what not to do, and knew how to treat all others with
> respect. Everyone on earth would be choosing their behaviors and
> beliefs very carefully if they want themselves and the human
> race to survive.
>
> I didn't think you'd be able to fully grasp the concept of this.
> You're not bright enough. Your kind would be the first to
> destroy yourselves. Nobody on earth would shed even one tear. It
> wouldn't be a loss of any kind, it would be all gain as far as
> human genetics are concerned.

Second Amendment advocate? The thing about liberals who cry
"equality!" is that the human race has NEVER been equal in ANY
way,and I think that's intentional and good.

But, if you want to view your thesis from a mathematics
perspective, consider that ALL aspects of people obey some sort of
probability distribution. To try to FORCE any particular "ethnic
cleansing" is what Adolf tried and what President Obama's previous
green jobs czar tried to advocate. Sadly, there are a number of
czars in the Obama Administration that want to cleanse the American
"race" somehow. Again, it has always amazed me why liberals and
their ACLU pals screen "freedom of speech!" from the mountain tops
yet CAN'T stand any criticism.

--
Jerry, aka HP

"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas
Prices and Solving Our Energy Crisis" - Newt Gingrich
From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>news:4b4152e6$4$19461$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "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?
>
>Yes, but the larger the sample, the less significance to the statistic,

Gotta love wingnut rationalizations.

>because there are many things involved in, "the crime rate". You have to ask
>what is. "a crime", and what significance does the possession of arms have
>to do with that crime.

Pick a crime like murder.

> A lot of people who die from guns in this country
>should have died......Their death was a, "good thing", because they were
>harming, or about to harm, others when they were killed.

So people dying is a good thing.

No wonder you love guns.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net