I'm a Liberal Liberatarian!

jlew24asu wrote:

um what right? not sure exactly. maybe the right as a human being to voice your opinion that herion should be illegal.

That certainly gives me the right (and you the right) to say anything we'd like about heroin or its legality. But it doesn't give the right to lock up someone for doing heroin in a 4x4 cell.

I disagree. I think the "dangerous and destructiveness" of the drugs itself (to the human body) far outweight the dangers of the illegalness of the drug. if that makes sense?

It make perfect sense. And that's a great argument to not do heroin yourself. But you don't own my body, friend, nor do you own anyone else's. So to make decisions for me, or for someone else, about what they can do to their own body is probably a road you don't want to go down, if you value your own.

never, because the effects of each are very different.

No, the legal situation around them are very different. If an addict could buy heroin at Wal-Mart for it's actual value (pennies), you would have much less violent crime surrounding heroin use and trade.

hehe yea same here. but herion, from what I have read, becomes addictive the first time you use it. and has devastating effects on the body and mind, immediately. I just have a hard time "agreeing" it should be legal.

Totally. But cigarettes match the above standard, as do lots of things.

farfromglorified wrote:

That would imply that the value of being taken seriously on a Pearl Jam message board outweighs the value of my lifestyle. It doesn't.

Well, it seems personal values aren't worth much then, coming from you.

farfromglorified wrote:

So the best way to support my "bottom line" is to enable a bunch of violent thieves and murderers??? That sounds like an excellent plan.

A "bottom line" implies something of value. There is no value possible in destruction and violence.

You said this: "- We are better off when our products are in free competition with those made by foreigners earning only a small fraction of our wages.

Agree."

And what if these 'foreigners' are under the control of 'violent thieves and murderers'?

If these rebels are in a position to exchange goods with you, which benefits your goals which you place value on, then why not? You answer 'agreed' to the other perspective I mentioned above.

baraka wrote:

You said this: "- We are better off when our products are in free competition with those made by foreigners earning only a small fraction of our wages.

Agree."

And what if these 'foreigners' are under the control of 'violent thieves and murderers'?

What if? That's not part of the question. The more likely event, in actuality, is that our wages are relatively higher because of violence and thievery here. Regardless, we are not better off if we are using slave labor, nor are we better off as slaves. That isn't the question, however.

I agree that we are better off when out products are in free competition with those made by foreigners earning only a small fraction of our wages.

If these rebels are in a position to exchange goods with you, which benefits your goals which you place value on, then why not? You answer 'agreed' to the other perspective I mentioned above.

You're simply assigning new qualities to these questions that aren't contained in their text.

I would not exchange goods with a rebel who was attempting to overthrow a democracy because exchange would imply an honest dealing with another. What honest dealing can I have with a violent criminal?

farfromglorified wrote:

When's the last time you heard about kids gunning each other down in the streets over cigarettes?

Not so long ago a kid here stabbed another kid because he didn't want to give him a cigarette. But that's of course an exception.

farfromglorified wrote:

No, the legal situation around them are very different. If an addict could buy heroin at Wal-Mart for it's actual value (pennies), you would have much less violent crime surrounding heroin use and trade.

Perhaps, do you really think it would be sold for it's actual value, though?

farfromglorified wrote:

What if? That's not part of the question. The more likely event, in actuality, is that our wages are relatively higher because of violence and thievery here. Regardless, we are not better off if we are using slave labor, nor are we better off as slaves. That isn't the question, however.

I agree that we are better off when out products are in free competition with those made by foreigners earning only a small fraction of our wages.

In other words, corporate colonisation. Economic slavery.


And then there's your own personal brand of slavery:

ffg wrote:

- Employers should be allowed to pay people as little as they can.

Agree.

jlew24asu wrote:

heroin????

:eek: NOoooooooooooooooooooooooo don't bite

Oooppps... too late!

Anyway, who woulda thunk... I'm a liberal I thought I was somewhere in the middle, but there ya have it, I'm a leftie

farfromglorified wrote:

Define this please. What is "economic slavery"?



:rolleyes:

If I changed that to:

"Employees should be able to make as much as they can", would you disagree? I'd agree with that one too.

You are advocating your libertarianism as policy, if I'm not mistaken.
It's amazing to me you don't see the fallibilty of it.

jlew24asu wrote:

yea I bit. but I see what ffg is saying. I guess I couldnt morally agree that heroin should be legal. but I could say the same for booze and ciggys too, but I dont. so what ya gonna do. heroin for all!

Yep, I can TOTALLY See how that would make the world a better place