Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => Prospective Participants => Topic started by: The Plano Texan on October 07, 2003, 04:40:16 pm

Title: Drugs in the FSP
Post by: The Plano Texan on October 07, 2003, 04:40:16 pm
First I want to thank Jason Sorens for his response to my e-mail regarding several question I had which were not listed or not elaborated on in the FAQ (which I actually read).  I'm not a member yet, but I don't expect to be "scared off" too quickly, either.  ;)

One of the questions I asked Jason was regarding drugs in the FSP.  His response and some of what I have read in other posts lead me to another question, however.  If someone wishes to engage in drug use, so be it provided their use does not interfere with someone else's preference to the contrary.  Currently, we have laws against drinking and driving.  If drugs are legalized in the FSP, will other laws restricting their use be enacted?

I also have a quick comment to the string "My 5 Questions" in regards to the separation of church and state, particularly the comment of prayer in schools.  If the education system is totally privatized and I want my children to pray in school, I take them to the New Hampshire Christian Academy.  If I don't agree with prayer in school, I take them to the Darwinian School of Maths and Sciences in which case it's a moot point, correct?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Stumpy on October 07, 2003, 04:56:23 pm
One of the questions I asked Jason was regarding drugs in the FSP.  His response and some of what I have read in other posts lead me to another question, however.  If someone wishes to engage in drug use, so be it provided their use does not interfere with someone else's preference to the contrary.  Currently, we have laws against drinking and driving.  If drugs are legalized in the FSP, will other laws restricting their use be enacted?

If you asking if the same laws applying to alcohol (driving under the influence, prohibited sales to minors, etc.) will apply to drugs, the answer would be, almost assuredly yes.


Quote
I also have a quick comment to the string "My 5 Questions" in regards to the separation of church and state, particularly the comment of prayer in schools.  If the education system is totally privatized and I want my children to pray in school, I take them to the New Hampshire Christian Academy.  If I don't agree with prayer in school, I take them to the Darwinian School of Maths and Sciences in which case it's a moot point, correct?

Yep. It’s amazing how freedom will take care of these nagging problems.

Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Dalamar49 on October 07, 2003, 05:58:19 pm
Welcome, Plano Texan to our happy little organization!

If growth continues like this though it won't be to long before I have to sopt saying "little."  :)

About drugs: I'm sure the same laws that apply to alcohol today will also apply to drugs. No using drugs and driving. No public intoxication, etc.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: atr on October 07, 2003, 06:29:01 pm

About drugs: I'm sure the same laws that apply to alcohol today will also apply to drugs. No using drugs and driving. No public intoxication, etc.


I don't see how public intoxication harms other people. I just drank a beer with dinner this evening, and was thinking how nice it will be when drinking in public (even to excess) is 100% legal.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: The Plano Texan on October 07, 2003, 07:21:18 pm
Quote
I don't see how public intoxication harms other people. I just drank a beer with dinner this evening, and was thinking how nice it will be when drinking in public (even to excess) is 100% legal.

Public intoxication for you, even to excess, may not be harmful to others.  Too many people exist outside that mold, though, for the potential problems to be ignored.  If you can drink to excess and handle your liquor in public, more power to you.  If you're drunk to the point of being incapacitated and start trying to drive yourself home, there is a problem.  If you become violent when you're drunk and start fights over imagined incidents, you don't need to be drinking to excess in public.  If you get happy when you're drunk and the world is your best friend, good for you.  I'll happily give you a ride home as long you don't leave a mess in the back seat!
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: RhythmStar on October 07, 2003, 07:30:50 pm
FWIW, in all cases of intoxication, the actual harm to others comes not from intoxication itself, but some other act.  I think these acts ought to be the crimes, not the harmless (to others) intoxication.  

Also, I see no reason not to tack extra penalties on when crimes are committed while under the influence.  My reasoning is simple -- with freedom comes responsibility.   The freedom to get wasted on the drug of your choice should carry with it the responsibility to make sure that you are not endangering others in the process.  To fail in that responsiblity I think is criminal negligence.

RS
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Dalamar49 on October 07, 2003, 08:22:07 pm

I don't see how public intoxication harms other people. I just drank a beer with dinner this evening, and was thinking how nice it will be when drinking in public (even to excess) is 100% legal.

Well although my anarcho-capitalist side is pushing me to accept public intoxication I still find myself wary of allowing it. Yes, I agree that drinking a beer or smoking a cigarette/joint in public does no one harm, but I am afraid to have people shooting heroine or snorting cocaine within the view of children and adults who may be offended by such.

On private property however, which includes businesses, people can do whatever the owner allows. I have no problem with heroine users shooting up in a club that allows it and I also have no problem with addicts snorting lines of coke....as long as its in their own home or in a business that allows it.

This gets down to the nitty-gritty. What activities should be allowed in public? If we go purely Libertarian then I should be able to have a fat orgy in public in front of children....while if we go with the more pragmatic approach some behavior must be curtailed if we are to maintain some semblance of order within the state.

Thankfully, I think such debates won't happen until we already lay the foundation of liberty in the FreeState. Arguements over what should be allowed in public won't occur until we re-acquire our rights to do as we want within our own homes and businesses.....which should take many-a-year.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: RidleyReport on October 07, 2003, 09:52:44 pm
Plano:

Welcome to the forum.  We have a DFW porcupine group up and running which meets every month.  Ongoing details regarding meetings are toward the end of the thread that starts at

 this link  (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=14;action=display;threadid=63;start=120#msg59343)

Look forward to seeing you at the next one, Oct. 18!
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: atr on October 07, 2003, 10:14:56 pm
Quote
I don't see how public intoxication harms other people. I just drank a beer with dinner this evening, and was thinking how nice it will be when drinking in public (even to excess) is 100% legal.

Public intoxication for you, even to excess, may not be harmful to others.  Too many people exist outside that mold, though, for the potential problems to be ignored.  If you can drink to excess and handle your liquor in public, more power to you.  If you're drunk to the point of being incapacitated and start trying to drive yourself home, there is a problem.  If you become violent when you're drunk and start fights over imagined incidents, you don't need to be drinking to excess in public.  If you get happy when you're drunk and the world is your best friend, good for you.  I'll happily give you a ride home as long you don't leave a mess in the back seat!

In a free society, I get to assess for myself whether my drinking in public will harm other people. If I get trashed and commit a crime (e.g. assualt, vandalism, littering, etc.), I should be punished for that crime. But drinking (even excessively) does not harm other people, and I shouldn't be punished for it.

RhythmStar has articulated the issue well:

"FWIW, in all cases of intoxication, the actual harm to others comes not from intoxication itself, but some other act.  I think these acts ought to be the crimes, not the harmless (to others) intoxication."

This is analogous to the recent Federal court opinion upholding the legality of file-sharing programs. Using the program is not criminal--it's how you use it. E.g. you don't outlaw cars just because some people use them in ways that harm other people. You shouldn't outlaw behaviors that have a tendency to harm other people--you should outlaw behaviors that do harm other people.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: atr on October 07, 2003, 10:21:03 pm

I don't see how public intoxication harms other people. I just drank a beer with dinner this evening, and was thinking how nice it will be when drinking in public (even to excess) is 100% legal.

Well although my anarcho-capitalist side is pushing me to accept public intoxication I still find myself wary of allowing it. Yes, I agree that drinking a beer or smoking a cigarette/joint in public does no one harm, but I am afraid to have people shooting heroine or snorting cocaine within the view of children and adults who may be offended by such.

We should outlaw behaviors for being offensive?

Liberty should be restrained only to prevent harm (e.g. force/fraud) being done to others, not to prevent people from being offended.

Imagine a world where it was justified to outlaw something for being offensive. I don't think the FSP would be legal.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: kater on October 07, 2003, 10:29:12 pm
The essential problem with Dalamar49's perspective is summed up in this question: "What activities should be allowed in public?"  The underlying assumption is (I deeply hope) completely contrary to the nature of FSP.  We are trying to leave the regulatory state behind, in so far as such a thing can be possible, and create a situation in which we no longer have to ask for permission to commit acts that do not harm others.

As for the assumption that such debates are premature ("I think such debates won't happen until we already lay the foundation of liberty in the FreeState"), that seems to be the essence of putting the cart before the horse.  If we don't know what we're moving for, what are we doing here?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: kater on October 07, 2003, 10:33:58 pm
I should add that even a rudimentary understanding of the American justice system makes a sham of preemptive punishment--that is, how can a structure based on assumed innocence convict citizens for being in a state in which they migh commit a crime?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: The Plano Texan on October 07, 2003, 10:43:06 pm
Quote
In a free society, I get to assess for myself whether my drinking in public will harm other people. If I get trashed and commit a crime (e.g. assualt, vandalism, littering, etc.), I should be punished for that crime. But drinking (even excessively) does not harm other people, and I shouldn't be punished for it.

Touche' and I should have responded with my agreement for the most part when RhythmStar said much the same thing.  However, if I stumble into the doorjamb while leaving a bar with my keys in my hand, can't walk a straight line from the door to the car and have to lean on everything in between, I am obviously not capable of assessing whether or not my drinking will harm someone else regardless of my own opinion.  Maybe if I make it home, no harm/no foul.  Maybe you're walking down the sidewalk and I'm too drunk to even notice I jumped the curb and you're a little wet spot on the cement now.  Granted, the piece of paper a law is printed on can't protect you.  Sometimes, it makes the other person think a little before acting if consequences are outlined before the incident.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: The Plano Texan on October 07, 2003, 10:54:36 pm
Quote
Liberty should be restrained only to prevent harm (e.g. force/fraud) being done to others, not to prevent people from being offended.

So where do your liberties stop and mine begin?  Are you insinuating that I could take my six-year-old to the grocery store and witness a "fat orgy" on the corner?  If such is the case, count me out.  If I have to live in fear not of a criminal from which I can protect myself trying to rob me but of a drunk driving down the road unwittingly about to kill my family, count me out.  If the idea of the FSP as that anyone can get away with anything, anywhere, at anytime so long as it doesn't actually hurt someone else, count me out.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: kater on October 08, 2003, 06:34:12 am
Quote
However, if I stumble into the doorjamb while leaving a bar with my keys in my hand, can't walk a straight line from the door to the car and have to lean on everything in between, I am obviously not capable of assessing whether or not my drinking will harm someone else

I would agree that judgment can be severely impaired, but haven't you ever heard the phrase, "I'm too drunk to drive."  It's not like self-assessment takes a nosedive out the window.  

On a related note, I'm curious as to the comfort you (and others) appear to have with looking to law (and government) to guarantee your safety.  Such a guarantee is inherently impossible to uphold, and requires the trading in of our most basic rights and responsibilities.  Just as paternalistic entitlement programs absolve citizens of the responsibility of taking care of themselves (see some of Doug Besharov's work, notably "We're Feeding the Poor As If They're Starving"), doesn't a desire for state protection signal an abandonment of my responsibility for myself?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Zack Bass on October 08, 2003, 06:43:27 am


I would agree that judgment can be severely impaired, but haven't you ever heard the phrase, "I'm too drunk to drive."  It's not like self-assessment takes a nosedive out the window.  
On a related note, I'm curious as to the comfort you (and others) appear to have with looking to law (and government) to guarantee your safety.
 ....
  ... doesn't a desire for state protection signal an abandonment of my responsibility for myself?


No.
That would be true if you were asking the government to protect you from the possibility that you might decide to sky-dive, or drive without a seatbelt, or ingest some righteous drugs.
But to ask the Government to protect you from irresponsible and dangerous others is entirely proper.

Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: lloydbob1 on October 08, 2003, 06:53:26 am
Quote
Liberty should be restrained only to prevent harm (e.g. force/fraud) being done to others, not to prevent people from being offended.

So where do your liberties stop and mine begin?  Are you insinuating that I could take my six-year-old to the grocery store and witness a "fat orgy" on the corner?  If such is the case, count me out.  If I have to live in fear not of a criminal from which I can protect myself trying to rob me but of a drunk driving down the road unwittingly about to kill my family, count me out.  If the idea of the FSP as that anyone can get away with anything, anywhere, at anytime so long as it doesn't actually hurt someone else, count me out.

Most grocery stores will want your business and refrain from allowing 'fat orgies' on their premises.
In spite of laws against it, that drunk capable of running you down is out there now.
In the Freestate, in the absence of laws against certain behavior, there will still be civil actions to cover the results of that behavior.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Aleuicius on October 08, 2003, 07:39:39 am
Personally, I do not believe in DWI/DUI laws of any sort. To some, this sounds harsh and uncaring, so I get little support for the position. This does not, however, mean that I condone DWI/DUI - I just abhor the pre-emptive nature of these laws and the industry that results.

When someone starts (drinking, using drugs), they are NOT incapacitated and I can't believe they are not aware of the effects about to take place. My position is that drinking or drug use should never be used as excuse or defense - if you start a fight, damage property, or kill while under the influence, you have committed assault, property damage, or manslaughter/murder, period, and will pay according to laws regarding same.

The only laws pertaining specifically to drugs and alcohol should be regarding sale to a minor, or given to a minor without parental knowledge and consent.

In a free land, it is only the actual causing of harm though force or fraud should be illegal, not the almost - or maybe - or ....  
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Elizabeth on October 08, 2003, 08:54:06 am
I should add that even a rudimentary understanding of the American justice system makes a sham of preemptive punishment--that is, how can a structure based on assumed innocence convict citizens for being in a state in which they migh commit a crime?

Bingo.  Exactly right, and my reason for opposing drunk driving laws.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: kater on October 08, 2003, 09:30:21 am
Quote
That would be true if you were asking the government to protect you from the possibility that you might decide to sky-dive, or drive without a seatbelt, or ingest some righteous drugs.
But to ask the Government to protect you from irresponsible and dangerous others is entirely proper.

How would a government do that without finding guilt before a crime is committed?  Also, I believe we're highlighting an ideological split inherent in the words "ask the Government."  I admit that there are a few things that I would expect government to do (defend borders, for example), but fundamentally (not to reference The Matrix here, but) there is no government.  We ask ourselves--the question is whether or not we believe in the legitimacy of coercing others into agreeing.  

As for any government's power to preemptively protect its "good" citizens from its dangerous ones, (to reference a really questionable film) that's one step down a very Minority Report-Phillip K. Dick kind of road.  Short of truly unjust government action, it is simply impossible.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: atr on October 08, 2003, 10:47:59 am
Quote
Liberty should be restrained only to prevent harm (e.g. force/fraud) being done to others, not to prevent people from being offended.
Quote
So where do your liberties stop and mine begin?
My liberty stops as soon as I cause harm to you.

Quote
Are you insinuating that I could take my six-year-old to the grocery store and witness a "fat orgy" on the corner?
Yes. How does this harm you or your six year old? I would not be allowed to force you to participate or even to watch.

Quote
If such is the case, count me out.

Quote
If I have to live in fear not of a criminal from which I can protect myself trying to rob me but of a drunk driving down the road unwittingly about to kill my family, count me out.

This sounds like a rough description of the way things are now.

Quote
If the idea of the FSP as that anyone can get away with anything, anywhere, at anytime so long as it doesn't actually hurt someone else, count me out.

This is my concept of what freedom is. I get to decide what I do. You get to decide what you do. No one decides for anyone else except to the extent necessary to prevent (actually, to punish) harm done by one person unto another.

According to the FSP, protecting liberty is one of the proper functions of government. In general, I think that the only justification for restricting liberty is in cases where exercising that liberty actually harms another person (thus infringing on his/her liberty).

You (and I) would generally prefer not to be exposed to offensive things or things that make us uncomfortable. I see being willing to face these things as a very small sacrifice to make in order to be able to decide for myself what I want to do.

Think about this question: When is it okay for the government to restrict someone's freedom to make choices for him/herself--specifically, choices about what to do and what not to do?

My answer is that it's justified when exercising that freedom takes away someone else's freedom to make choices for him/herself.

The answer to the question I see as a blueprint for the role of the government in The Free State. How do you answer this question?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: The Plano Texan on October 08, 2003, 11:13:12 am
Quote
I would agree that judgment can be severely impaired, but haven't you ever heard the phrase, "I'm too drunk to drive."  It's not like self-assessment takes a nosedive out the window.  

Yes I have.  And too many times, that personal assessment was actually a statement of "the law says I'm too drunk to drive."  I have seen the same people that made that assessment try to drive an hour and several drinks later.

Quote
In spite of laws against it, that drunk capable of running you down is out there now.

I am painfully aware of that.  The "scenario" I related earlier happened to my fiancee' in '88.  She was the one on the sidewalk.

Quote
When someone starts (drinking, using drugs), they are NOT incapacitated and I can't believe they are not aware of the effects about to take place.

True, they are not incapacitated, but they are rarely aware of the effects about to take place.  How many vehicular manslaughter offenders are in prison right now that said, "You know, I think I'll go get drunk and kill someone tonight."  More likely, they were planning on having just one beer on the way home and, like the Ruffles (or is it Lay's) commercial, they couldn't have just one.

Quote
In the Freestate, in the absence of laws against certain behavior, there will still be civil actions to cover the results of that behavior.

So if someone who cannot control his/her drinking runs down someone in my family, does that person have the sentence communted to 2nd degree manslaughter while under the influence, or do I get to be on the firing squad?

Quote
Most grocery stores will want your business and refrain from allowing 'fat orgies' on their premises.

But it's okay if my kids see it on the grounds of Bubba's Shag Shack across the street, right?

Quote
If I have to live in fear not of a criminal from which I can protect myself trying to rob me but of a drunk driving down the road unwittingly about to kill my family, count me out.
Quote
This sounds like a rough description of the way things are now.

A man broke into a house last year and was caught by a Hispanic woman who weighed appr. 325 pounds.  She sat on the man for 17 minutes until the police arrived and he suffered a fractured rib.  I say good for her.  He sued and won $40,000.  In another break-in, a man tried to enter through the skylight and fell on a glass coffee table.  He won $65,000.  If someone breaks into my house and I shoot them, I can still be sued by the family for wrongful death.  That is a rough description of the way things are now.  I should be able to protect myself and not fear civil repercussions.

Quote
I would not be allowed to force you to participate or even to watch...

Think about this question: When is it okay for the government to restrict someone's freedom to make choices for him/herself--specifically, choices about what to do and what not to do?

My answer is that it's justified when exercising that freedom takes away someone else's freedom to make choices for him/herself.

My choice is not to have to see an orgy taking place on a street corner.  My choice is not to have my six-year-old see an orgy taking place on a street corner.  If your choice is to have an orgy on a street corner, you have already violated my right to choose not to see it whether I'm forced to watch or not.  You're response would probably be that by choosing not to see the action taking place, I am violating your right to choose to participate because it doesn't hurt me or my child to see it.  Does it hurt you to participate someplace less conspicuous?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: kater on October 08, 2003, 12:00:54 pm
To Plano Texan -- I hope you will take this the right way, because I sincerely do not mean this to sound harsh, condescending, or judgmental.  But I've become curious, watching this exchange--what is it about the Free State Project that you find attractive?  In many ways, you seem NOT to identify with a libertarian stance, but if you are fundamentally concerned with the greater exercise of personal freedom, I'm a bit confused as to which personal freedoms you hold dear.  Could you elaborate?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: RhythmStar on October 08, 2003, 12:15:06 pm
Quote
In a free society, I get to assess for myself whether my drinking in public will harm other people. If I get trashed and commit a crime (e.g. assualt, vandalism, littering, etc.), I should be punished for that crime. But drinking (even excessively) does not harm other people, and I shouldn't be punished for it.

Touche' and I should have responded with my agreement for the most part when RhythmStar said much the same thing.  However, if I stumble into the doorjamb while leaving a bar with my keys in my hand, can't walk a straight line from the door to the car and have to lean on everything in between, I am obviously not capable of assessing whether or not my drinking will harm someone else regardless of my own opinion.  Maybe if I make it home, no harm/no foul.  Maybe you're walking down the sidewalk and I'm too drunk to even notice I jumped the curb and you're a little wet spot on the cement now.  Granted, the piece of paper a law is printed on can't protect you.  Sometimes, it makes the other person think a little before acting if consequences are outlined before the incident.

If a person is as incapacitated as you describe, then being behind the wheel is ipso facto reckless driving.  This is and should be actionable by the police.  And if there is probable cause, a pull-over and roadside test for intoxication is not a bad thing.  Frankly, if drug laws and gun carrying laws were repealed, the problems with enduring a roadside intoxication test would be mostly on the order of being inconvenienced, as long as you aren't a menace to public safety.  

I know if I owned the road,  I would make my strict 'no intoxicated drivers' rule a major selling point.  And I'm sure I would get a much lower insurance rate as a result.

RS
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Justin on October 08, 2003, 12:32:09 pm
If I pose a clear and present danger to those around me, the government--via the police--has the obligation to take action.  Just blowing a 0.08 BAC1 at a random stop does not fit that condition, though the argument could be made that the State owns the road (i.e. not "the public") and as such can pass rules resticting its usage.


1  As a test of the 0.08 BAC law, some friends and I got ahold of a BAC tester, the results: a girl who blew a 0.07 couldn't stand up if she tried;  a 300 lb Samoan dude, drank everone under the table, blowing a 0.09, and passed any field sobriety test we could throw at him.  *shrug*
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: The Plano Texan on October 08, 2003, 12:37:14 pm
Quote
I hope you will take this the right way, because I sincerely do not mean this to sound harsh, condescending, or judgmental.

Neither do I intend to sound offensive or dissenting.  I'm very hard to offend, so feel free (no pun intended) to sound as you wish.  Capturing emotion behind a comment is where the internet fails as a source of communication even with all the smilies.

What do I find attractive about the Free State?

Metaphorically, the right to walk to the edge of the cliff, see the canyon below and choose for myself if I want to be a part of the beauty, watch from a distance or walk away without the view being obstructed by the "Do Not Cross" sign or being pushed over the edge.

If you would like me to be more specific, I will certainly oblige, but it would probably be better suited in the "Why did I join" section which I haven't done yet.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: atr on October 08, 2003, 01:12:29 pm
Quote
If I have to live in fear not of a criminal from which I can protect myself trying to rob me but of a drunk driving down the road unwittingly about to kill my family, count me out.
Quote
This sounds like a rough description of the way things are now.

A man broke into a house last year and was caught by a Hispanic woman who weighed appr. 325 pounds.  She sat on the man for 17 minutes until the police arrived and he suffered a fractured rib.  I say good for her.  He sued and won $40,000.  In another break-in, a man tried to enter through the skylight and fell on a glass coffee table.  He won $65,000.  If someone breaks into my house and I shoot them, I can still be sued by the family for wrongful death.  That is a rough description of the way things are now.  I should be able to protect myself and not fear civil repercussions.

I agree whole-heartedly. I only meant to point out (as you acknowledged above) that "a drunk driving down the road unwittingly about to kill my family" is a current threat, not one unique to a more free society.

Quote
I would not be allowed to force you to participate or even to watch...

Think about this question: When is it okay for the government to restrict someone's freedom to make choices for him/herself--specifically, choices about what to do and what not to do?

My answer is that it's justified when exercising that freedom takes away someone else's freedom to make choices for him/herself.

My choice is not to have to see an orgy taking place on a street corner.  My choice is not to have my six-year-old see an orgy taking place on a street corner. If your choice is to have an orgy on a street corner, you have already violated my right to choose not to see it whether I'm forced to watch or not. You're response would probably be that by choosing not to see the action taking place, I am violating your right to choose to participate because it doesn't hurt me or my child to see it.
Quote
If your choice is to have an orgy on a street corner, you have already violated my right to choose not to see it whether I'm forced to watch or not.

But you still have a choice. You can look away. Or cover your eyes. Or go to a different street corner. Or move to a place where people are less lewd in public. Or tell the people in the orgy that you think they're corrupting your child. You can tell your child that even though people have a right to have orgies on street corners, it is still inappropriate behavior. You have many choices, none of which you will be punished for choosing.

----

It sounds like what you're advocating is a place in which the government decides what public behavior is acceptable and unacceptable. This is a state of oppression, not a state of liberty.

The problem with having a central authority to decide what behavior is acceptable and unacceptable is that it takes away the ability of individuals to make these decisions for themselves.

Advocates of true liberty recognize that different people have many different opinions about what behavior, public and private, is acceptable. Liberty means letting people make decisions for themselves, because it would be impossible to make one decision acceptable to everyone.

Oppression is when you are forced to obey other people's desires about what you should and should not do.

Think about free speech. Which do we value? The right to say what you want or the right to not hear what you don't want to hear? Who is being oppressed? The person being censored? Or, the person who is exposed to the uncensored material?

Are you more free or less free if there is a law prohibiting the use of bad words?

Isn't this the same with action? Should I be prohibited from doing something because someone else doesn't want to watch?

We're talking about two different kinds of liberty. I'm talking about the liberty to do what I want. You're talking about the liberty to not be exposed to other people doing what they want. Which is more important?

What happens if we adopt the principle that people should be free to not be exposed to other people doing what they want--when we decide that other people (e.g. through government force) get to decide what we can and can't do?

That's when we are no longer free.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Dalamar49 on October 08, 2003, 01:17:21 pm
Aahhh, the debate continues. I really opened Pandora's box by bringing up public intoxication.

"Curse you Dalamar!" *Dalamar shakes fist....at himself?*

Anyway, although no one seems to agree with me,  rules of public property are the nitty gritty. Its the rights to do what you want on private property I'm more concerned with.

I hope that you, Plano Texan, join up. Although you'll most definetely find disagreements among members here I think you'll find that we're pretty much united on the ideas of:

1.) lowering taxes
2.) legalizing (at least) soft drugs
3.) legalizing gambling
4.) returning public school control to local goverments rather than the  state of feds running them.
5.) cutting business regulation/taxes.
6.) replacing government equity programs with voluntary charities and such.
7.) standing up for civil liberties (opposing the PATRIOT act, etc.)
8.) Uh.....other stuff I guess.  ???

If you agree to the following I think you and whoever else agrees should join the FSP. Yeah, sure we disagree when it comes to holding big fat orgies in public, but I doubt this issue is going to come up for a long time.................unless we have some members who are really interested in big fat orgies......and if so I can only hope they'll only hold such orgies in their own houses, clubs, etc.


Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: kater on October 08, 2003, 01:27:11 pm
Plano Texan - I like a person who's hard to offend.  Likewise.  

In terms of an explanation, though, I still feel baffled.  (And I actually do think that this discussion is relevant because it obviously lies at the root of our higher order disagreement.)  Based on your metaphor, I'm not sure if you are really embracing liberty itself, which comes with the benefits of choice as well as the responsibilities of living with freedom.  Life is not safe, and government would be hard pressed to change that fact in anything other than rhetoric.

In general, I would like to plant one idea, which you can see either as an olive branch or a cop-out:  what we want to maximize is choice.  Creating a small-government, limited intrusion state is the prerequisite for the real leap--deciding for yourself.  That may include, within the free state, the decision to move with like-minded people to a town that would viciously shun drunk drivers, maybe be dry, offer free health care, education, or whatever.  The key is the right to find your own community or to live outside of one.  It's all about exit rights.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: The Plano Texan on October 08, 2003, 02:36:27 pm
Quote
But you still have a choice. You can look away.
Not until I've seen it to know to look away.
Quote
Or cover your eyes.
Not until I've seen it to know to cover my eyes.

I agree that you have the right to make the choice of having the orgy as I would hope that you agree that I have the right to choose not to see it in the first place.  Once seen, the image stays.  Once heard, the language stays.  Should you be arrested for exercising your right to an orgy on the street corner?  No.  I will concede to that, but either way you look at it, the liberties of one impede the liberties of the other.  Places can be designated for various behaviors.

Quote
Think about free speech. Which do we value? The right to say what you want or the right to not hear what you don't want to hear? Who is being oppressed? The person being censored? Or, the person who is exposed to the uncensored material?

Now you're talking about an entirely different matter.  Is the right to free speech a Constitutional right?  No.  It is the Ammendment to the Constitution.  What about the right to bear arms?  Another ammendment.  The right to public orgies on street corners?  I haven't found that one yet, but I'll keep looking.

I've seen many posts dealing with unConstitutional laws and returning back to what the Constitution was originally made for, but most of these rely on ammendments to make their point.  For myself, I disagree with much of the Constitution and find it not very well written.  If it were written well in the first place, we wouldn't need all the ammendments.  The same posts that argue with the ammendments changing the Constitution to allow for taxation, etc. are also in other places citing freedom of speech as a Constitutional right rather than an ammendment.  Is one of the FSP goals to throw out some ammendments and keep others?  If so, why didn't GimmeFuel get to vote?

There are many points the FSP has made in posts that I agree with.  There are many that I disagree with.  I know I'm not the only one from having read many other posts where people agree or disagree.  At least be consistent.  Don't seek to go back to the Constitution using ammendments as the reasons both why it liked and disliked.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: kater on October 08, 2003, 02:52:20 pm
Plano Texan - again, I have to disagree, this time on your characterization of constitutional amendments.  Madison, widely cited as the author of the Bill of Rights (amendments 1-10), actually spoke out quite strongly against amendments, because he truly believed that the rights that pro-amendments folks wanted to see protected were already deeply enshrined in the original document.  If anything, Madison feared that a necessarily incomplete list of citizens' rights would end up limiting the rights that the American people think that they have.  And that's exactly what's happened.

Why then did Madison accede to the anti-federalists' demands for constitutional amendments?  Because he made a political decision and realized that if he maintained control (as much as possible) over the situation, harm could be averted.  Madison's proposed amendments were carefully crafted to change absolutely nothing in the rights of citizens', precisely because the citizens of America had too many rights to count--hence the last paragraph of his fourth proposal (http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/jm4/speeches/amend.htm), which became the 9th Amendment.

So as for
Quote
If it were written well in the first place, we wouldn't need all the ammendments.
, if we still have half of a grasp of the constitutional logic we don't.

For more, see a terrific book by Robert A. Goldwin called From Parchment to Power.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: kater on October 08, 2003, 02:56:03 pm
Also:
Quote
Once heard, the language stays.
Quote
Quote: ATR
Think about free speech. Which do we value? The right to say what you want or the right to not hear what you don't want to hear? Who is being oppressed? The person being censored? Or, the person who is exposed to the uncensored material?

Your reply: Now you're talking about an entirely different matter.

Doesn't your first comment belie your second?  

Don't buy into enumerated rights, my friend.  It's a sham.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: The Plano Texan on October 08, 2003, 03:05:01 pm
Quote
Madison, widely cited as the author of the Bill of Rights (amendments 1-10), actually spoke out quite strongly against amendments, because he truly believed that the rights that pro-amendments folks wanted to see protected were already deeply enshrined in the original document.  

And yet the Constitution itself provides for amendments to be made.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution..." Article V
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: kater on October 08, 2003, 03:10:46 pm
Yes, but who's to say that those amendments would necessarily be concerned with rights?  In fact, based on the text of the Constitution itself, it stands to reason that amendments would logically have hard more to do with governmental structure.  After all, the word "amendment" implies a change to that which is already there--but in a document that, in its original form, makes no real mention of rights, what is there to amend if not structure?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: The Plano Texan on October 08, 2003, 03:13:44 pm
In which case the Constitution neither allows nor denies rights.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: atr on October 08, 2003, 03:20:59 pm
Quote
But you still have a choice. You can look away.
Not until I've seen it to know to look away.
Quote
Or cover your eyes.
Not until I've seen it to know to cover my eyes.

I agree that you have the right to make the choice of having the orgy as I would hope that you agree that I have the right to choose not to see it in the first place.  Once seen, the image stays.  Once heard, the language stays.  Should you be arrested for exercising your right to an orgy on the street corner?  No.  I will concede to that, but either way you look at it, the liberties of one impede the liberties of the other. Places can be designated for various behaviors.

Thank you for making that concession.

Why shouldn't someone be arrested for having an orgy on the street corner?

The point I've been trying to make is that someone should only be arrested for doing something that inflicts harm (e.g. force/fraud) on another person in violation of that person's right to govern his/herself.
Quote
Quote
Think about free speech. Which do we value? The right to say what you want or the right to not hear what you don't want to hear? Who is being oppressed? The person being censored? Or, the person who is exposed to the uncensored material?

Now you're talking about an entirely different matter.  Is the right to free speech a Constitutional right?  No.  It is the Ammendment to the Constitution.  What about the right to bear arms?  Another ammendment.  The right to public orgies on street corners?  I haven't found that one yet, but I'll keep looking.

I've seen many posts dealing with unConstitutional laws and returning back to what the Constitution was originally made for, but most of these rely on ammendments to make their point.  For myself, I disagree with much of the Constitution and find it not very well written.  If it were written well in the first place, we wouldn't need all the ammendments.  The same posts that argue with the ammendments changing the Constitution to allow for taxation, etc. are also in other places citing freedom of speech as a Constitutional right rather than an ammendment.  Is one of the FSP goals to throw out some ammendments and keep others?  If so, why didn't GimmeFuel get to vote?

There are many points the FSP has made in posts that I agree with.  There are many that I disagree with.  I know I'm not the only one from having read many other posts where people agree or disagree.  At least be consistent.  Don't seek to go back to the Constitution using ammendments as the reasons both why it liked and disliked.

I did not mention the Constitution. I am talking about a free state. Liberty includes the liberty to speak freely, but that's far from the only kind of liberty.

This all goes back to my question, "When is it okay for the government to restrict someone's freedom to make choices for him/herself--specifically, choices about what to do and what not to do?"
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: kater on October 08, 2003, 03:37:15 pm
Let me try to make one more Constitutional argument, and then I'm going to give up.

Our Constitution is a formal one, which is to say that--apart from the later additions--it is entirely concerned with how to make a government work.  That's layer one.

Layer two is, of course, the idea of that government.  Any government is formed with goals in mind, so the appropriate question is "what were the goals of the Founders?"  As laid out in the preamble to the Constitution those goals were:

1 - justice
2 - domestic tranquility
3 - the general welfare
4 - liberty

Some people claim that the Constitution is a frame of silver around the Declaration's gold--I would argue instead that Articles I through Article VII are the frame around the golden preamble.  What on earth are the "Blessings of Liberty" if not rights--and fundamentally one right: self-determination.

For comparison, you should take a look at the new proposed EU Constitution--a bloated compilation of entitlements (http://european-convention.eu.int/bienvenue.asp?lang=EN).  
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: The Plano Texan on October 08, 2003, 03:54:05 pm
Quote
Why shouldn't someone be arrested for having an orgy on the street corner?
The punishment is not longer limited to the person involved in the orgy.  In most places, public nudity or "indecent exposure" or whatever you want to call it results in being arrested (waste of time), a booking process (waste of money however minimal), possibly jail (big waste of money), court dates (time and money) and is taxing more ways than one on many people.  IMO, it's completely ludicrous.  Maybe "law" seems to strong a word, but what is a law other than a rule?  What is a rule other than an enforced guideline?  Rather than impose a heavy punishment for breaking the rule, you're asked to move along to the "free sex zone" with some sort of warning.  You do it again the next day with the same results.  Soon this becomes a habit.  Rather than impose a burden on the people who don't want to see the actions and whose rights are being infringed on,  you pay a fine or are asked to do some sort of community service.  Has the government restricted your choice by doing this?  No.  Have you restricted my choice not to see by going to the "free sex zone"?  No.  What has been restricted?  Only the location where you make the choice.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: kater on October 08, 2003, 04:02:08 pm
Quote
Rather than impose a burden on the people who don't want to see the actions and whose rights are being infringed on...
What are these rights that you keep referencing?  I cannot understand a principle of freedom that rests on the right not to be exposed to things you don't like.  I wish I didn't have to see the graphic pictures carried by animal rights protestors, smell the pot that my neighbor smokes, or hear Celine Dion ever.  But that doesn't (or shouldn't) make those things illegal.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: The Plano Texan on October 08, 2003, 04:13:05 pm
Quote
What are these rights that you keep referencing?
The same rights everyone else is referencing.  You have the right to do.  I have the right not to do.  You have the right to be seen.  I have the right not to see.  I'm not saying those things should be illegal.  I'm saying there should be places such things are not permitted.

Quote
Creating a small-government, limited intrusion state is the prerequisite for the real leap--deciding for yourself.  That may include, within the free state, the decision to move with like-minded people to a town that would viciously shun drunk drivers, maybe be dry, offer free health care, education, or whatever.  The key is the right to find your own community or to live outside of one.  It's all about exit rights.

And yet by what atr is stating, this violates his right to have an orgy on the street corner in that town.

Quote
For comparison, you should take a look at the new proposed EU Constitution
No thanks.  I've lived in Europe (Italy and Germany) within the last ten years.  You think we have it bad?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: kater on October 08, 2003, 04:25:07 pm
First, for the sake of clarity:

Quote
I'm not saying those things should be illegal.  I'm saying there should be places such things are not permitted.
 That is an oxymoron.

The second quote gets to my main point which is this: the government does not give you your rights.  I doubt very much that ATR is arguing a universal right to orgy--rather that the most libertarian (that is, the most free) government would leave that decision up to the citizens.  ATR would apparently go to the most hands-off community, and you would not.  So be it.

As for Europe, I am hardly arguing that Europe is a good example--in fact, I hold it up as a complete disaster.  The problem is that, with a Supreme Court that is increasingly interested in referencing international law (see Lawrence v. Texas, and recent statements from Justices Breyer and Ginsburg), the rot is likely to spread across the Atlantic.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: The Plano Texan on October 08, 2003, 04:31:26 pm
Quote
Quote
I'm not saying those things should be illegal.  I'm saying there should be places such things are not permitted.

 
  That is an oxymoron.

That's a matter of perception.  Texas has a concealed handgun law.  I can carry with a license, but I cannot carry inside a school; ergo. carrying is not illegal but there are places where carrying is not permitted.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Zack Bass on October 08, 2003, 04:45:06 pm



  ... how can a structure based on assumed innocence convict citizens for being in a state in which they migh commit a crime?


Bingo.  Exactly right, and my reason for opposing drunk driving laws.


How about someone who has set up a target on the other side of a public street and has so far managed to miss pedestrians by at least an inch with every shot?  Or is being vewwy vewwy careful with his Anthrax hobby?

There are some things that are dangerous to others, and the government is entirely correct to punish those who engage in them - even if harm was, that time, narrowly avoided.  This is not really even Preemptive; the Punishment may come weeks after the Offense.  Long as people know it's coming down on them if they endanger me.

Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Zack Bass on October 08, 2003, 04:47:10 pm


Texas has a concealed handgun law.  I can carry with a license, but I cannot carry inside a school; ergo. carrying is not illegal but there are places where carrying is not permitted.


Well duh duh duh.  If you carry inside a school, you have commited a Crime.  I call that an Illegal Act.

Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: The Plano Texan on October 08, 2003, 04:52:08 pm
Quote
[Quote from: The Plano Texan on Today at 05:31:26pm]
Texas has a concealed handgun law.  I can carry with a license, but I cannot carry inside a school; ergo. carrying is not illegal but there are places where carrying is not permitted.
Well duh duh duh.  If you carry inside a school, you have commited a Crime.  I call that an Illegal Act.
Quote
Semantics.  My point was that carrying is not illegal.  The place carried is the restriction.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: kater on October 08, 2003, 06:35:37 pm
Last attempt, I promise.

Quote
My point was that carrying is not illegal.  The place carried is the restriction.

Please tell me that you can see why some of us are arguing that that restriction is, in fact, a criminalization--and hence makes the carrying of the gun (albeit in specific circumstances) illegal.  Hence, sometimes, carrying IS illegal.  The merits of that criminalization can be a completely separate argument for now.  
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: The Plano Texan on October 08, 2003, 09:39:17 pm
Quote
Last attempt, I promise.
Don't stop now!  Educate this unenlightened dotard.  Well, actually I'm not old...  Show me why you are right and I am wrong or tell me all of this is based on opinion and ours differs from each other.  Zack is agreeing on an extremist basis with setting up targets for shooting across the street.  ATR is saying anything, anytime, anywhere as long as nobody gets hurt (is that physically? emotionally?).  You're saying...
Quote
That may include, within the free state, the decision to move with like-minded people to a town that would viciously shun drunk drivers...
at one point and then ...
Quote
Please tell me that you can see why some of us are arguing that that restriction is, in fact, a criminalization...
in another.  Are the townspeople who shun the drunk drivers guilty of criminalization?  If they put up a sign that says "No sex in public within the limits of our town", does it violates ATR's rights to have sex on the street corner since nobody's getting hurt?  If he decided to pull up with a truckload of women and do it anyway, does the town have any recourse other than to ask him to leave since it isn't "illegal"?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: kater on October 09, 2003, 06:02:40 am
Plano Texan--you caught me still working out my libertarian utopia, which may not be the libertarian state that ATR or Zack Bass would want to live in.  Fundamentally, what this gets down to is a definition of harm--I believe (and I would argue that ATR, at least, would agree) that the limit of my freedom is harm to another person or a person's property.  My leaning is to a definition based on physical harm, while it appears that yours includes some definition of psychological damage (i.e., a classic "pain and suffering, give me $80 billion" claim).  The question then is this: if we create a free state based on your concept, what are we doing that is truly different?  I still don't know what concrete liberties you care about...  To be fair (and possibly helpful), my list includes:

1 - the right to build on my own property without asking the state for permission
2 - the right to take a bottle of wine to a pretty spot in town and drink it
3 - the right to eat raw milk cheese, mangosteens, or whatever else the FDA is considering banning today
4 - the right to decide for myself if that pot is a good idea
5 - the right to descend into a construction-alcohol-food-and-drug-induced haze if I so choose, and
6 - the right to take credit and blame for my own life--unsupported and unhindered by government "help."

With those in mind, is it a good idea to have an orgy on a street corner?  No.  Does that mean that it should be illegal?  No.  I wholeheartedly sanction the exercise of personal disapproval.  

Quote
Are the townspeople who shun the drunk drivers guilty of criminalization?  If they put up a sign that says "No sex in public within the limits of our town", does it violates ATR's rights to have sex on the street corner

I think you are unnecessarily confusing dislike and criminalization.  Living in a libertarian state, will I personally approve of heroin use?  No.  Will I criminalize it?  Never.  Will I approve of orgies on the street corner?  No.  If I put up a sign saying "No orgies," would that be criminalization?  Yes.  Coercion is the evil here.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Zack Bass on October 09, 2003, 06:21:20 am


1 - the right to build on my own property without asking the state for permission
2 - the right to take a bottle of wine to a pretty spot in town and drink it
3 - the right to eat raw milk cheese, mangosteens, or whatever else the FDA is considering banning today
4 - the right to decide for myself if that pot is a good idea
5 - the right to descend into a construction-alcohol-food-and-drug-induced haze if I so choose, and
6 - the right to take credit and blame for my own life--unsupported and unhindered by government "help."


I heartily approve of all of these, with some clarification of #3:
I suspect that what you mean is the right to MARKET raw milk etc.  You are already allowed to possess and eat all the raw milk you can stand - unlike heroin.

I have one other beef with raw milk:  If it is a Dangerous Thing, like Anthrax, then you may be punished for using it irresponsibly.  For example, Tuberculosis is a Public Health Hazard and is the reason Mr. Pasteur's process was mandated in the first place.  You must be very careful that your product does not result in the spread of Tuberculosis - it is not a Victimless Crime if I get sick from your customers.
I prefer irradiation.  It doesn't change the taste at all, and it kills more germs.  I'd like to be irradiated myself when I die - then Bronzed.

Quote

With those in mind, is it a good idea to have an orgy on a street corner?


Yes.  If you can keep those in mind during an orgy on a street corner.

Quote

If I put up a sign saying "No orgies," would that be criminalization?  Yes.  Coercion is the evil here.


A sign itself is not Coercion.  I may deface the sign.  I may put up a sign that says "Do What Thou Wilt".  If they Enforce that which the sign says, then it is Coercion.  If they do not Enforce, but they pay for the construction or maintenance of the sign with Public Funds, then it is also theft.  If, like the Alabama Courthouse, they put up something offensive and protect it from defacement with Public Funds, then again it is Coercion... AND theft.

Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Zack Bass on October 09, 2003, 06:39:23 am


My point was that carrying is not illegal.  The place carried is the restriction.


Places are not restrictions.

Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: kater on October 09, 2003, 07:07:08 am
Ah, raw milk.  That comment takes me back a couple of years.  In 2001, I believe, the FDA considered banning raw milk cheese, most likely at the lobbying behest of Nestle and Kraft.  (http://www.mindfully.org/Food/Unpasteurized-Cheese-FDA-Question.htm)  I like my parmesan, and I'll be damned if the FDA makes me pour powdered cheese on my pasta.  Personally, I go with consumer reponsibility on this sort of thing.  I have the right to be a moron and buy something made of bacteria that might kill me.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Zack Bass on October 09, 2003, 08:16:17 am


Personally, I go with consumer reponsibility on this sort of thing.  I have the right to be a moron and buy something made of bacteria that might kill me.


Absolutely.
But someone who sells you bacteria-laden milk when you have a reasonable expectation that it is free of bacteria ought to be punished.  If he labels it "milk with possibly lots of bacteria", then fine.
But there is the matter of  Public Health.  You do not have a right to expose yourself to Tuberculosis unless you are willing to go into quarantine and make sure everyone near you is aware of your condition, or at least take some course of treatment that makes it non-infectious (and some infections cannot be so treated).  I will agree that that is not something the milk merchant ought to be punished for: it is you who are the offender if you knowingly contract Tuberculosis in that way.

As long as we're talking about Victimless Crimes, I want to keep The government out.
Having HIV, as long as you are celibate, is Victimless.
Exposing others to HIV without informed consent, and walking around in public with infectious Tuberculosis, are not Victimless Crimes.

Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: kater on October 09, 2003, 09:41:24 am
Public health is an interesting variation on our discussion.  I've spent some time looking at the modern (that is, current) misuses of the term "epidemic" (obesity, smoking, diabetes, etc.).  It really does give you some respect for the epidemics of old, and a total lack of respect for the present government interpretation of what "public health" is.  I mean, obesity may be a widespread problem, but contagious and/or infectious it is not.

The Revolutionary War-era smallpox outbreak is quite an intriguing case study of a public health disaster.  Apart from allegations of deliberate infection (in the cases of both local tribes and colonists), the lack of government power itself was quite a barrier to fixing the problem.  Of course, when government power did exist and was used, it tended to do things like outlaw inoculation.  

I think we agree in principle on the fraud basis of the food argument, and I think the same "reckless disregard"/harm to others argument holds for infectious diseases.  Of course, then, the question arises--were Typhoid Mary's rights violated when she was indefinitely quarantined?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Jilks on October 09, 2003, 10:15:28 am
I've seen a few posts speaking of children seeing an orgy, or a person using drugs and the poster stating that they do not want their children seeing that. That's all OK and fine with me, but then you have other posters stating that the acts the people are commiting in front of the other's children should be allowed, since you don't have to watch (kinda hard not to see this stuff, IMO) and that people will likely not allow suff acts to happen on their property. (What is someone buys land to have public orgies?)

At anyrate, why not bring children into law creation? It's their life too and they should have a say in what will become of it. Some of you are probably thinking "Oh, great, Barbi is illegal". Such wouldn't happen if you ask the child a specific question. Surveys are simple and not all that costly (mostly just takes time). Children are typically very up-front about whether they like something or not, unlike adults, who have been practicing their lying skills for many, many years.

Yeah, yeah. There are a lot of faults with this, but I think they should still have a say.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Zack Bass on October 09, 2003, 10:22:30 am


At anyrate, why not bring children into law creation? It's their life too and they should have a say in what will become of it. Some of you are probably thinking "Oh, great, Barbi is illegal". Such wouldn't happen if you ask the child a specific question. Surveys are simple and not all that costly (mostly just takes time). Children are typically very up-front about whether they like something or not, unlike adults, who have been practicing their lying skills for many, many years.


That changes nothing.  Just as with adults, the ones who enjoy seeing orgies will watch, and the rest will be bored and take out their GameBoy.

None of this makes sense if one does not agree that sex is nasty.  The unstated assumption, when people say they don't want children to see it, is that sex is nasty.  They seldom say "I don't want my kid seeing Soccer".

Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Reaper on October 09, 2003, 10:23:13 am
The whole "I don't want my kids seeing that!" argument is a line of crap.

YOU are responsible for YOUR children, not your neighbors, not the government and not anyone else.

You don't want your kids seeing some certain act or words or whatever, than YOU need to take steps to see to it they don't.  Know where you are taking them, who owns the property and what the rules are of the property owners.

Your decision to procreate does not in any way restrict the rights of your neighbors.  
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: kater on October 09, 2003, 10:25:06 am
Jilks--interesting idea.  My concern (actually in general, not just with your post) is that it seems to me that for a liberty-loving group of people, we appear to be rather inordinately interested in the passage of laws.  Perhaps you want your children to have a say in how their lives are run, and as a parent you have the authority to grant them that experience.  If I, however, want to be a parental dictator--that is, if I feel that structure produces the best (happiest, or whatever my goal is) children--don't I have that authority as well?  The only way we can both be happy is to keep the law out of it, isn't it?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: jeanius on October 09, 2003, 10:55:33 am
I have children.  The trick here is taking responsibility for my children.  If I go downtown to shop with my kids and there is a big fat orgy on the corner chances are I won't shop there again.  Might not shop there without my children either.  Market forces will create an environment where I can shop with my children without fear of them being exposed, prematurely, to something peculiar.  

On the parenting side I find that I continually have to rachet (sp?) up my expectations of what my kids can handle and need to be informed about.  While seeing a big fat orgy isn't something we've run into yet we have stopped at the scene of a fatal auto accident to lend assistance.  While I kept the kids in the car while husband helped they did see some unpleasantness.  I wouldn't have made the choice for them to see that but life happens and we talked about driving and accidents and death ...  

Protecting children is a red flag used by politicians and bureacrats.  Parents, not government, need to protect children.

Jean
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: The Plano Texan on October 09, 2003, 11:03:57 am
Quote
My leaning is to a definition based on physical harm, while it appears that yours includes some definition of psychological damage (i.e., a classic "pain and suffering, give me $80 billion" claim).
For the most part, I don't agree with lawsuits based on "pain and suffering", but have you ever seen someone so withdrawn into a shell from verbal abuse that they flinched when you spoke to them?  I have.  Have you ever seen someone who has had nightmares that lasted for months because of something they saw?  I have.  I don't know about you, but I call that pain.  Just like physical pain, there are degrees of emotional pain.  These are obviously extremes and, IMO, much more severe than seeing my wife cry because she and her best friend had an argument.  It's still pain.  Maybe the possibility that ATR's escapades on the street corners will cause that kind of pain is so slim it's negligible, but it's still there.

Let's change the situation.  ATR is enjoying himself on the street corner with a few friends.  I jump up on a soapbox across the street and start preaching hellfire and damnation.  ATR gets offended because he feels insulted.  Since it's my right to preach on my soapbox, he needs to just ignore me and get on with his life based on what he says.  One of his friends, however, winds up with a mental image that I've planted.  That mental image haunts ATR's friend who starts having nightmares.  As the nightmares start crossing over into waking hours and reality becomes obscured by an obsession that I've caused, ATR's friend eventually is consumed with guilt to the point that the only perceived option is suicide.  Have I hurt that person?

I realize this is extreme.  I realize it's unlikely - particularly in group of 20,000 somewhat similarly minded people.  So lets ease up a bit.  Let's say I don't like you.  I start sending you hate mail.  I start threatening you.  Have I physically hurt you or damaged your property?  No, but I get so vicious that you're afraid to leave your house because I might be out there somewhere.  Have I hurt you?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: The Plano Texan on October 09, 2003, 11:10:19 am
Quote
The whole "I don't want my kids seeing that!" argument is a line of crap.
Forget the kids.  I don't want to see it, either.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Jilks on October 09, 2003, 11:34:26 am
Jilks--interesting idea.  My concern (actually in general, not just with your post) is that it seems to me that for a liberty-loving group of people, we appear to be rather inordinately interested in the passage of laws.

Yeah, I agree. I prefer social norms, but they can be hard to enforce. Protecting children and seeing that they have the possibility of having a good life without dramatic experiences is a high priority for me, which is why, in this case, I would rather see law.

Quote
Perhaps you want your children to have a say in how their lives are run, and as a parent you have the authority to grant them that experience.

Yes, when I have a child, I will want her/him to have his/her say, which would, of course, come into effect when she/he can speak.

Quote
If I, however, want to be a parental dictator--that is, if I feel that structure produces the best (happiest, or whatever my goal is) children--don't I have that authority as well?  

Depends, really. If you view children as property (too slave-ish for me), then, yes, you do have the authority.

Quote
The only way we can both be happy is to keep the law out of it, isn't it?

Depends, again. What if one thinks beating their children will make the child happy? (Yeah, not everyone is that sick, but hey.) I think a common ground can be met for both protecting children emotional and physically, with the help of children, and still leave much room for parents to have self-declared rule over their children without the parents feeling hindered by law/governement.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Jilks on October 09, 2003, 11:40:21 am
Quote
My leaning is to a definition based on physical harm, while it appears that yours includes some definition of psychological damage (i.e., a classic "pain and suffering, give me $80 billion" claim).
For the most part, I don't agree with lawsuits based on "pain and suffering", but have you ever seen someone so withdrawn into a shell from verbal abuse that they flinched when you spoke to them?  I have.  Have you ever seen someone who has had nightmares that lasted for months because of something they saw?  I have.  I don't know about you, but I call that pain.  Just like physical pain, there are degrees of emotional pain.  These are obviously extremes and, IMO, much more severe than seeing my wife cry because she and her best friend had an argument.  It's still pain.  Maybe the possibility that ATR's escapades on the street corners will cause that kind of pain is so slim it's negligible, but it's still there.

Let's change the situation.  ATR is enjoying himself on the street corner with a few friends.  I jump up on a soapbox across the street and start preaching hellfire and damnation.  ATR gets offended because he feels insulted.  Since it's my right to preach on my soapbox, he needs to just ignore me and get on with his life based on what he says.  One of his friends, however, winds up with a mental image that I've planted.  That mental image haunts ATR's friend who starts having nightmares.  As the nightmares start crossing over into waking hours and reality becomes obscured by an obsession that I've caused, ATR's friend eventually is consumed with guilt to the point that the only perceived option is suicide.  Have I hurt that person?

I realize this is extreme.  I realize it's unlikely - particularly in group of 20,000 somewhat similarly minded people.  So lets ease up a bit.  Let's say I don't like you.  I start sending you hate mail.  I start threatening you.  Have I physically hurt you or damaged your property?  No, but I get so vicious that you're afraid to leave your house because I might be out there somewhere.  Have I hurt you?

Exactly! And don't forget, a child's mind is much more fragile in such a case. (What child hasn't been afraid of monster under the bed or in the closet?)
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: atr on October 09, 2003, 11:56:53 am
Quote
My leaning is to a definition based on physical harm, while it appears that yours includes some definition of psychological damage (i.e., a classic "pain and suffering, give me $80 billion" claim).
For the most part, I don't agree with lawsuits based on "pain and suffering", but have you ever seen someone so withdrawn into a shell from verbal abuse that they flinched when you spoke to them?  I have.  Have you ever seen someone who has had nightmares that lasted for months because of something they saw?  I have.  I don't know about you, but I call that pain.  Just like physical pain, there are degrees of emotional pain.  These are obviously extremes and, IMO, much more severe than seeing my wife cry because she and her best friend had an argument.  It's still pain.  Maybe the possibility that ATR's escapades on the street corners will cause that kind of pain is so slim it's negligible, but it's still there.

Let's change the situation.  ATR is enjoying himself on the street corner with a few friends.  I jump up on a soapbox across the street and start preaching hellfire and damnation.  ATR gets offended because he feels insulted.  Since it's my right to preach on my soapbox, he needs to just ignore me and get on with his life based on what he says.  One of his friends, however, winds up with a mental image that I've planted.  That mental image haunts ATR's friend who starts having nightmares.  As the nightmares start crossing over into waking hours and reality becomes obscured by an obsession that I've caused, ATR's friend eventually is consumed with guilt to the point that the only perceived option is suicide.  Have I hurt that person?

I realize this is extreme.  I realize it's unlikely - particularly in group of 20,000 somewhat similarly minded people.  So lets ease up a bit.  Let's say I don't like you.  I start sending you hate mail.  I start threatening you.  Have I physically hurt you or damaged your property?  No, but I get so vicious that you're afraid to leave your house because I might be out there somewhere.  Have I hurt you?

Exactly! And don't forget, a child's mind is much more fragile in such a case. (What child hasn't been afraid of monster under the bed or in the closet?)

What happens when people think that their child's mind will be corrupted if he hears about the Free State Project. Or, to use Zack's example above, sees people playing soccer. We should definitely ban the FSP and soccer! It's for the children!
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Jilks on October 09, 2003, 12:10:34 pm
What happens when people think that their child's mind will be corrupted if he hears about the Free State Project. Or, to use Zack's example above, sees people playing soccer. We should definitely ban the FSP and soccer! It's for the children!

I like to think people have a little more common sense than that.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Reaper on October 09, 2003, 12:17:01 pm
Quote
The whole "I don't want my kids seeing that!" argument is a line of crap.
Forget the kids.  I don't want to see it, either.

Then don't watch!  You are free to look away, go somewhere else or even stand there and heckle if you got the stomach for it.

There simply is no right to not be offended.

As for the "psychological harm" argument.  It's just more BS.  People can't be held accountable for the feelings of others.  Nor can it be in anyway proven that viewing such a scene would be "psychologically harmful".  

If we're going to start punishing people for hurting the feelings of others during the exercise of their rights we're gonna need a LOT more jails.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Zack Bass on October 09, 2003, 12:27:27 pm



What happens when people think that their child's mind will be corrupted if he hears about the Free State Project. Or, to use Zack's example above, sees people playing soccer. We should definitely ban the FSP and soccer! It's for the children!


I like to think people have a little more common sense than that.


You are saying that it is "Common Sense" to view sex as Nasty.  If it's the same as watching Soccer or the FSP, your argument evaporates.

I am not arguing (yet) that sex is not Nasty (who knows, maybe it is and I never noticed), all I'm asking for here is that the assumption be made clear, or that some real reason be given for "protecting" children from it.

Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Jilks on October 09, 2003, 12:37:37 pm



What happens when people think that their child's mind will be corrupted if he hears about the Free State Project. Or, to use Zack's example above, sees people playing soccer. We should definitely ban the FSP and soccer! It's for the children!


I like to think people have a little more common sense than that.


You are saying that it is "Common Sense" to view sex as Nasty.  If it's the same as watching Soccer or the FSP, your argument evaporates.

I am not arguing (yet) that sex is not Nasty (who knows, maybe it is and I never noticed), all I'm asking for here is that the assumption be made clear, or that some real reason be given for "protecting" children from it.



I never said anything about sex being nasty. I only said some people would rather their children not see it. Whether they think it's nasty or not, is their choice, however I think they just find it inappropriate to conduct in public.

As for protecting children from it, that's stupid. Children will learn about sex. The end. It's just a matter of the parent, or general public, wanting or not wanting themselves of their children to see sex conducted in public.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Zack Bass on October 09, 2003, 12:47:11 pm


I never said anything about sex being nasty. I only said some people would rather their children not see it. Whether they think it's nasty or not, is their choice, however I think they just find it inappropriate to conduct in public.


OF COURSE you didn't say that Sex is Nasty, that's my whole point.  It seems that that is the basis for saying that one must pander to the irrationalities of those who don't want their children to see it.  I am certain that you are not saying that everything, no matter what, that some Parent doesn't want his child to see must result in the imprisonment of the one seen.

Aren't we talking about imprisonment here?  If not, if we're just shootin' the breeze about what some people like and some people don't like, it's been a real waste.

Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Jilks on October 09, 2003, 12:50:43 pm


I never said anything about sex being nasty. I only said some people would rather their children not see it. Whether they think it's nasty or not, is their choice, however I think they just find it inappropriate to conduct in public.


OF COURSE you didn't say that Sex is Nasty, that's my whole point.  It seems that that is the basis for saying that one must pander to the irrationalities of those who don't want their children to see it.  I am certain that you are not saying that everything, no matter what, that some Parent doesn't want his child to see must result in the imprisonment of the one seen.

Aren't we talking about imprisonment here?  If not, if we're just shootin' the breeze about what some people like and some people don't like, it's been a real waste.

I'd hope we're not talking about imprisonment!
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Zack Bass on October 09, 2003, 12:57:57 pm


Protecting children and seeing that they have the possibility of having a good life without dramatic experiences is a high priority for me, which is why, in this case, I would rather see law.


Are you talking about some kind of Law that doesn't involve Imprisonment?

Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: The Plano Texan on October 09, 2003, 12:58:47 pm
[quote from Reaper Today at 01:17:01pm]
As for the "psychological harm" argument.  It's just more BS.  People can't be held accountable for the feelings of others.  Nor can it be in anyway proven that viewing such a scene would be "psychologically harmful".  
Quote
So if I get up and preach on my soapbox and your spouse/significant other decides to kill him/herself, that's okay with you.  Your significant other shouldn't have taken it so personal.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Jilks on October 09, 2003, 01:07:46 pm


Protecting children and seeing that they have the possibility of having a good life without dramatic experiences is a high priority for me, which is why, in this case, I would rather see law.

Are you talking about some kind of Law that doesn't involve Imprisonment?

Yes. Hell, the law doesn't even have to involve fines! While almost(?) everyone here seems to go the "their your kids, you protect them, not the government" route, I think the government should have the ability to help. It doesn't have to help, but, I think, it should the option to help OR setup help, since the government should protect its people.  
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Zack Bass on October 09, 2003, 01:15:18 pm


Yes. Hell, the law doesn't even have to involve fines! While almost(?) everyone here seems to go the "their your kids, you protect them, not the government" route, I think the government should have the ability to help. It doesn't have to help, but, I think, it should the option to help OR setup help, since the government should protect its people.  


Spooky.

Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: BradKeyes on October 09, 2003, 01:21:35 pm
Well Zack already stole some of my thunder related to whether or not drunk driving should be outlawed, but I'd like to add a  few comments.

There is such a thing as clear and present danger - there may be a specific legal term for it too but I can't recall it. And drunk driving falls into that category. If you believe there shouldn't be laws against drunk driving because no one has been injured yet do you also believe:

-----

On a separate note, one of my pet peeves is people using the word harm in place of violation of rights. I know it's much quicker to say 'harming someone is wrong' and 'the role of government is to prevent people from harm.' Unfortanately the term leads to muddy thinking and miscommunication, especially when trying to educate other's about libertarianism.

There are many acts that are/should be legal and are even ethical that can 'harm' someone.

A few examples are:

Harm is not an issue, only Violations of Rights
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Reaper on October 09, 2003, 01:22:03 pm
[quote from Reaper Today at 01:17:01pm]
As for the "psychological harm" argument.  It's just more BS.  People can't be held accountable for the feelings of others.  Nor can it be in anyway proven that viewing such a scene would be "psychologically harmful".  
Quote
So if I get up and preach on my soapbox and your spouse/significant other decides to kill him/herself, that's okay with you.  Your significant other shouldn't have taken it so personal.

If they kill themself?  That's suicide.  

Unless your pulling the trigger how is that your fault?  
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: The Plano Texan on October 09, 2003, 01:35:54 pm
Quote
If they kill themself?  That's suicide.  

Unless your pulling the trigger how is that your fault?  
Wouldn't have happened if I hadn't caused it.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Aleuicius on October 09, 2003, 02:15:12 pm
quote: It's OK to walk down the street firing off a machine gun as long as no one has been hit?

    This is seriously reckless behavior - and obviously so - and intervention is definitely called for.

quote: It's OK to walk down the street juggling a couple of vials of smallpox and as long as you don't drop one and it breaks open?

    While this can be quite serious, the vials may contain nothing at all. What has happened to justify intervention - other than stepping up and asking what's in the vials? Then things may change.
 
   A driver weaving all over the road presents an obvious danger that justifies intervention regardless of the reason (cell phone, stereo, kids, dogs, dope,...). If another driver has imbibed, but weaves not at all, where is the justification? Can we allow intervention without cause - just unfounded suspicions? I surely hope not.
  When a driver is stopped for cause (weaving, holding down a stop sign, driving in the ditch, etc), there are laws to deal with it already, such as reckless endangerment. There are also laws for more serious results that will prove sufficient.
  Before any of this, though, something has to happen and many of us are not willing to accept this.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Reaper on October 09, 2003, 03:02:00 pm
Quote
If they kill themself?  That's suicide.  

Unless your pulling the trigger how is that your fault?  
Wouldn't have happened if I hadn't caused it.

Actually, this happens a lot.  It's usually some priest or soap box prophet who instills guilt and shame in an unstable person until they end up committing suicide.  Shall we prosecute them all?

On another note, it wouldn't have happened if someone hadn't sold them the gun/knife/poison, etc.  Shall we prosecute them too?

The law should not concern itself with hurt feelings.  Only force or fraud.

If people are weak or stupid enough to be moved to suicide by someones oratory what can I say?  Darwin Award time!
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: BradKeyes on October 09, 2003, 03:27:31 pm
quote: It's OK to walk down the street firing off a machine gun as long as no one has been hit?

    This is seriously reckless behavior - and obviously so - and intervention is definitely called for.

quote: It's OK to walk down the street juggling a couple of vials of smallpox and as long as you don't drop one and it breaks open?

    While this can be quite serious, the vials may contain nothing at all. What has happened to justify intervention - other than stepping up and asking what's in the vials? Then things may change.
 
   A driver weaving all over the road presents an obvious danger that justifies intervention regardless of the reason (cell phone, stereo, kids, dogs, dope,...). If another driver has imbibed, but weaves not at all, where is the justification? Can we allow intervention without cause - just unfounded suspicions? I surely hope not.
  When a driver is stopped for cause (weaving, holding down a stop sign, driving in the ditch, etc), there are laws to deal with it already, such as reckless endangerment. There are also laws for more serious results that will prove sufficient.
  Before any of this, though, something has to happen and many of us are not willing to accept this.


Aleuicius,

Very good points.

If I can sum up your point it's basically that there should be laws against reckless driving, no matter the cause. Correct?

Overall I think I may be able to agree with that. But it brings up a few more questions in my mind.

First, Would there be extenuating cirsumtances, like a bee flew in my eye, that would allow the police to use some judgement on weaving or driving in the ditch 'offenses'?

Second, supposed someone staggered out of a bar in front of an officer, started to get into a car to drive, the officer warned them it would not be a good idea to drive, and the person refused to listen. Does the officer have to follow the 'suspect' and wait for reckless driving to occur or is the staggering out of the bar enough indication that it will happen?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Aleuicius on October 10, 2003, 08:17:42 am
BradKeyes,

  Yes, there are always circumstances, but there needs to be cause before intervention is initiated. A Peace Officer (aka Police) should indeed be able, and use, judgement determining the amount of intervention - from ensuring the bee is gone and the driver is able to continue to arrest, if necessary, on criminal charges.

 In your second question, a staggering drunk getting in a car fulfills the need for cause and intervention - the officer KNOWS the person is impaired - but the question becomes what kind of intervention? Since nothing criminal has happened, now what? Whatever happened to giving them a cot to sleep it off, then letting them find there way home afterward? Here again, the judgement of the intervening Peace Officer is needed. Now, we arrest them before they've done anything harmful.
 
 
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Mokuri on October 10, 2003, 09:09:18 am
I'd suggest an empirical approach to the issue of public use of drugs.

Anybody familiar with the situation in The Netherlands, where I believe all/most drugs are legal, and public use is common?

Debating the merits of public use is all fine & well, but skims the broader issue.  We all pay for drug & alcohol abuse in state taxes for de-tox programs, rehab & counseling. . .or step over addicts in the streets, as is the case in Holland.
Title: Why "Harm" is Useful
Post by: atr on October 10, 2003, 09:09:25 am
From Brad Keyes:
Quote
On a separate note, one of my pet peeves is people using the word harm in place of violation of rights. I know it's much quicker to say 'harming someone is wrong' and 'the role of government is to prevent people from harm.' Unfortanately the term leads to muddy thinking and miscommunication, especially when trying to educate other's about libertarianism.

There are many acts that are/should be legal and are even ethical that can 'harm' someone.

A few examples are:

Say someone invents a cheap device that creates power from static electricity in the air. This will put a lot of people out of business. These people will have been harmed.

If someone's boyfriend/girlfriend breaks up with them. They have perhaps been harmed.

If I fire an employee they are harmed.

When the Free State Project is successful, a lot of parasites will have been harmed.

Harm is not an issue, only Violations of Rights

I used the term harm quite a bit in this thread, and let me explain why it's useful and relevant.

I agree with you that violations of rights are the issue. However, I think it's generally easier to recognize when someone has been harmed than when someone has had their rights infringed.

As you imply, (and I agree), violations of liberty are a subset of harm.

In other words, all violations of someone's liberty are harmful to that person.
Not all things that harm someone violate that person's liberty. (Your examples illustrate this nicely.)

In other words (again):

If I have violated your liberty, I have harmed you.

And we can conclude this:

If I haven't harmed you, I haven't violated your liberty.

And this is exactly the way I've been using the term "harm", or at least the way I should've been. It's a quick test to see whether a particular exercise of liberty is okay--if it causes no harm to another person, then we know that it does not violate their liberty, and thus it is okay (i.e. it should not be prohibited).
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Zack Bass on October 10, 2003, 09:12:15 am


 In your second question, a staggering drunk getting in a car fulfills the need for cause and intervention - the officer KNOWS the person is impaired - but the question becomes what kind of intervention? Since nothing criminal has happened, now what? Whatever happened to giving them a cot to sleep it off, then letting them find there way home afterward? Here again, the judgement of the intervening Peace Officer is needed. Now, we arrest them before they've done anything harmful.
 

And in the case of someone asking about a hitman to murder his wife... why not tell him we're keeping an eye on you, and you better make sure nothing happens to her, you're the first guy we'll come looking for.  That will warn him off and stop the danger right away.  Now, though, we set up a sting and (eventually) chuck him in prison.  While the sting is being set up, he could go ahead and murder his wife; the focus is not on Prevention.

Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: atr on October 10, 2003, 09:13:34 am
quote: It's OK to walk down the street firing off a machine gun as long as no one has been hit?

    This is seriously reckless behavior - and obviously so - and intervention is definitely called for.

We don't need a standard of "recklessness" in order to intervene. The would be a clear case of destruction of property and littering (which is really just another type of destruction of property.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Zack Bass on October 10, 2003, 09:20:12 am


Anybody familiar with the situation in The Netherlands, where I believe all/most drugs are legal, and public use is common?


Actually, I saw an article last month that said drugs, including marijuana, are still illegal there, but it is unenforced in the case of Marijuana.  Same with Euthanasia - there are countries where it is legal, but Holland isn't one of them.  Again, though, it is unenforced.
A friend of mine was walking down the street in Amsterdam with some hash.  Cop comes up to him and says, "Is that a SpaceCake?"  "Yes."  "Can I have some?" "No - it's mine!"  Smile and end of story.

I do know that everyone (including me) thought for many years that Prostitution was legal in Holland.  When they did finally legalize it in 1999, we realized that it had not been legal after all!  Only tolerated and never enforced.

Quote

Debating the merits of public use is all fine & well, but skims the broader issue.  We all pay for drug & alcohol abuse in state taxes for de-tox programs, rehab & counseling


Easy solution:  Stop paying for that Crapp.

Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: RhythmStar on October 10, 2003, 11:08:01 am
If I pose a clear and present danger to those around me, the government--via the police--has the obligation to take action.  Just blowing a 0.08 BAC1 at a random stop does not fit that condition, though the argument could be made that the State owns the road (i.e. not "the public") and as such can pass rules resticting its usage.


1  As a test of the 0.08 BAC law, some friends and I got ahold of a BAC tester, the results: a girl who blew a 0.07 couldn't stand up if she tried;  a 300 lb Samoan dude, drank everone under the table, blowing a 0.09, and passed any field sobriety test we could throw at him.  *shrug*

Obviously, BAC is not a reliable indication of impairment, as different brains have different abilities to tolerate BAC levels.  This does not mean that an effective test for impairment cannot be developed.  It may mean that a different protocol than the one currently used should be employed, or at least the laws changed to make BAC only a portion of the impairment assessment.    

BTW, to answer the question of what a different protocol might be, one that comes to mind would be the ability of the accused to contest their impairment by paying to undergo a voluntary test in a driving simulator.   First, they would ingest enough booze and drugs under controlled conditions to match their numbers at the time of citation (or arrest).  Then, they would climb into the simulator and their response times and ability to judge unexpected driving scenarios could be tallied.

Of course, failing such a test would not prove that they would have harmed anyone, but it would prove that they were driving in a reckless manner.   The punishment should be a citation for reckless driving, perhaps with an extra penalty for reckless driving due to intoxication.   Passing the test would mean that the charges are dimissed and PERHAPS that the cost is covered by insurance.

One nice side-effect of this sort of system is that well-intentioned folks would then have incontrovertible proof that they cannot drive well when stoned.   This might go further towards changing their behavior than punishment alone.

RS
Title: Re:Why "Harm" is Useful
Post by: BradKeyes on October 10, 2003, 11:24:22 am

If I haven't harmed you, I haven't violated your liberty.

And this is exactly the way I've been using the term "harm", or at least the way I should've been. It's a quick test to see whether a particular exercise of liberty is okay--if it causes no harm to another person, then we know that it does not violate their liberty, and thus it is okay (i.e. it should not be prohibited).

atr,

You're absolutely right with your statement above and that is how you've used the term 'harm' in your postings.

My point many people will take your statement above and make the illogically leap to:

If you harm me you've violated my rights. And therefore the government must do something.

This concept leads to many harmful :) laws and it makes debating with non-libertarians more difficult.

Although is harder to keep saying 'violates rights' it keeps the focus where it needs to be, on rights, not on harm.
Title: Re:Why "Harm" is Useful
Post by: atr on October 10, 2003, 01:12:18 pm
My point many people will take your statement above and make the illogically leap to:

If you harm me you've violated my rights. And therefore the government must do something.

You're exactly right. Ultimately the question comes back to liberty.

If we know that something does not harm another person, then we know it doesn't infringe their liberty. But, if we know that something does[/] harm another person, we must still ask, "Does it infringe his/her liberty?"

Unfortunately, the definition of liberty itself gets lost, too. IMO, the benefit of asking the harm question first is that if the answer is "no, it doesn't harm anyone else," then we don't even need to define what liberty is exactly. It's not especally easy to come up with an agreeable definition of harm, but agreeing on a definition of liberty can be even tougher.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: MrVoluntarist on October 10, 2003, 06:49:37 pm
Hey!  Look at me!  I can play word games with "harm" to act like I'm smarter than libertarians!  I'm so clever!
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: atr on October 10, 2003, 09:35:08 pm
Hey!  Look at me!  I can play word games with "harm" to act like I'm smarter than libertarians!  I'm so clever!

I am a libertarian.

I think you must have misunderstood me.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: MrVoluntarist on October 11, 2003, 03:51:44 pm
Hey!  Look at me!  I can play word games with "harm" to act like I'm smarter than libertarians!  I'm so clever!

I am a libertarian.

I think you must have misunderstood me.

That wasn't in reference to you.  I was addressing the mentality of the people that were posting with that attitude, which, if you're a libertarian, wasn't you.  Sorry for not making that clear.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: DustinD on October 29, 2003, 02:30:13 pm
Quote
My choice is not to have to see an orgy taking place on a street corner.  ...  If your choice is to have an orgy on a street corner, you have already violated my right to choose not to see it whether I'm forced to watch or not.  ...

I would hate to see an orgy as much as anyone, but lets see the flaw in your argument.
What if I choose not see SUVs, women who are not covered head to toe in black cloth, firearms, people eating, or anything else? I can give examples of people who do not want to see any of the above. Your not wanting to see something does not trump their right to do it. What if someone did not want to see you, what if they did not want to see your home destroy the landscape that used to be there?

The only difference is there is a super majority that does not like to see orgies.
I would suggest giving cities limited ability to control the commons in matters that do not harm others, provided they can get a 95% super majority of voters to agree, only about two thirds would have to vote on the issue, but no more than 5% of the people who vote can vote against it.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: ProteusLizz on October 30, 2003, 09:08:25 am
we went from drugs being leglized to orgies to drunk driving to guns and everywhere else :::shaking head:::  I am concerned about the legalization of drugs as well.....not about the law end but the money end.  Seeing that, in the big picture, the FEDERAL government decides what is and is not legal to transport, even if u legalize drugs on a state, county or city level the price will not go down.

Not that I have specific numbers, I can only base my opinion on what I have personally experienced.......a sizable percentage of persons using drugs (soft or hard) have a hard time being responsible citizens.  Meaning.....paying their utilities, rent, bills becomes harder because what is more important to them??  The high or their responsibility?  When they come down from that high and realize they need money, where are they going to get it from??  Seeing that their income comes from a job where they need to show up sober but their addiction has superceded that.   Higher crime rates perhaps? Crack alleys perhaps where they live in abandoned buildings?  

I am new to this forum and Libetarianism (sp) but have lived my life by the "majority" of these ideals.  LESS government involvement and MORE people involvement.  Now if the law was to say you can grow what you want and use it for yourself....GREAT!!!  But how many actaully have the knack for being a horticulturist??? :)  Now this leads to growers and suppliers....which again leads back to MONEY.  What do you do with those who use but do not have the means to maintain their use???  Do we have a public field for them to take as they want??  We will have to deal with their addiction as we do now??  

There are no easy answers.........and some of the postings I have seen lean more to a Seperatists view than a Libetatian one.  The idea that you live in a community but can do whatever you please is NOT feasible.  Responsibility, Respect and Organization are not only needed but expected if you plan to live together.  But that is just how I see it :)  Peace
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Reaper on October 30, 2003, 10:24:14 am
The VAST majority of drug users are very functional people.  They work, pay taxes, support themselves and their families and you probably know more than a few and just aren't even aware of their "hobby".

You should read through "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use" by Jacob Sullum.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: ProteusLizz on October 30, 2003, 05:52:57 pm
The VAST majority of drug users are very functional people.  They work, pay taxes, support themselves and their families and you probably know more than a few and just aren't even aware of their "hobby".

You should read through "Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use" by Jacob Sullum.
OK....the functional druggies are NOT the ones you need to concern yourself with.........as I saw no numbers in your reply I am guessing that you are going by either experience or book knowledge.  But what about the ones who become debiltated by drug use and CANNOT function???  We MUST look at all sides and NOT just the side that supports our views
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Reaper on October 30, 2003, 06:00:49 pm
Okay, specifically what are your concerns regarding them?

They will resort to crime?

We will certainly have laws against force and fraud (whether drug addiction plays any role in this or not).

They are an eye sore?

Yup.  No crime in that though.

Who will help them rehabilitate?

Private organizations and individuals will help some.  Some will not be helped and will doubtless spend their life in the gutters, as many do already.

I really can't think of anything that removing the drug laws will cause that doesn't already exist.  Some argue legalization will make more drug users but the statistics show otherwise.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: ProteusLizz on October 30, 2003, 06:50:58 pm
ok, specifics............
Not only an eyesore or homeless laying around whereever is dry BUT.........who pays for these people???  in todays society WELFARE does.  Not everyone will have family or friends to help them, and the community can only do so much.  So we are to live in this new free state with homeless addicts laying about???  That would infringe my liberty, no???  I dont want people laying about, I have that now.

As I mentioned in my first posting, I am concerned about the money issue.  WHO PAYS???  There are medical costs involved, food, housing, possible education, etc.  in reforming an addict.  AND not everyone will have a support group to lean on.  

I NEVER said I was AGAINST legalizing drugs, I'm just asking if the whole plan was thought out with pros and cons both listed.  Before we jump into an endeavor lets make sure it aint like jumping off a bridge and can kill us.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Reaper on October 30, 2003, 07:19:37 pm
Quite frankly, those that will not be cared for by family, friends or other private voluntary measures will not be cared for.

We will be elimination as much public property as possible and I know private property owners will not allow them to lay about on their private property.  You may encounter them in the streets or public property, sure.  That's no different than now.  So . . . why bother with the drug war and throwing all those functional people in cages?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: ProteusLizz on October 31, 2003, 03:30:55 am
First off...........I never said I agreed with the drug war or the locking up of people..........it's all a waste of money.  I just thought that leading a life of Libedrty would be more than "each person for himself and to hell with the community"  In my ideal a community does NOT just let the nonproductive citizens clutter the street.....So basically what you are saying, tell me if I didn't understand your view correctly, in this "NEW" free state........no one is accountable to society, you do as you please and to hell with your neighbor if it infinges them, there are "left" and "right" wings in this group (not a solid core) and half the state will have to carry guns because of "FEAR" of the other half.   Well hell.......you just described TODAYS society minus rules, regulations and laws!!!!!  What makes it so different?  

From my understanding the people in this forum are suppossed to "ATTRACT" others with like-thinking....not have them RE-THINK the whole proposition.  What I want to know is...........HOW IS THE FREE STATE DIFFERENT FROM TODAYS SOCIETY REGARDING DRUGS AND RESPONSIBILITY BESIDES THE FACT THAT THEY ARE LEGAL AND NO ONE WILL GIVE A DAMN ABOUT IT?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Kyle on October 31, 2003, 04:01:05 am
One can destroy his life with many things.  Drugs, alcoholism, sloth...the free state gives a person the freedom to do whatever he wants, provided he isn't harming others (encroaching on their liberty, more specifically).  Requiring people to pay for the mistakes of others does them harm.  In the free state, the government will not pay to fix alcoholics, busted drug addicts, or any other sort of person.

YOU, as a private citizen, are free to help rehabilitate anyone you like.  If YOU believe in rehabilitating drug addicts, YOU can donate to non-profit organizations that have this goal.  You and anyone else can donate as much to this cause as you feel it deserves, and you can even volunteer your time to help this goal along, and it is a good goal which I'm sure can help many people...But when you forcibly take money from my pocket to fix someone who is where they are because of the life they lived, you do ME an injustice.  When you take from a man who is successful because of the life he built and use it to subsidize a man who is a failure because of the life he threw away, you are taking away my right to my blood, sweat and tears.  I worked 80 hours a week busting my ass to get where I am, and you want to give it to or use it to fix someone who didn't work like I worked.  I earned it and I will decide where to spend it.  Grant me my right of giving to who I please and I will grant you the same.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Morpheus on October 31, 2003, 06:08:11 am
Quote
OK....the functional druggies are NOT the ones you need to concern yourself with.........as I saw no numbers in your reply I am guessing that you are going by either experience or book knowledge.  But what about the ones who become debiltated by drug use and CANNOT function???  We MUST look at all sides and NOT just the side that supports our views


Welfare would not even EXIST within the Free State. Nor will things such as Public Education, or Public Housing. All gone. Privatized.

As for the drug users who become so dehabilitated as to be unable to take care of themselves any longer, as said by others here, private charity shall attend to them if this is the will of generous souls. Otherwise.. they'll die.
I, quite frankly, couldn't care less.

Quote
no one is accountable to society, you do as you please and to hell with your neighbor if it infinges them,

Force, Fraud, and Theft WOULD be illegal within the Free State. Put down the crack, woman. Relax.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: ProteusLizz on October 31, 2003, 12:35:24 pm
ok ONE) I do NOT support Welfare or Tax funded programs
    TWO) I am a REALIST

I agree with people doing what they want and all BUT  when i say accountable to society I am NOT speaking of LAWS...I am speaking of our responsibility to each other.  To live with others we all are held accountable to each other.  And I am NOT speaking of LAWS or TAXES or forcing one to give up their hard earned money to another.  MORALS!!!  Or, are those gone in the free state to.  Being a realist I look at EVERYTHING on all sides, as I said before, NOT just the side that makes my point valid.

And MORPHEUS.....no crack here and I am relaxed.  I just get tired of people thinking they can create a perfect world for themselves ONLY.  I thought that was for Seperatists.  We are trying to create a COMMUNITY where there are less laws not NO LAWS, where we don't have to worry if our tax dollars go to an organization we don't approve of orwhere our free-will and choice is not infringed upon. BUT still.......it is a COMMUNITY not a bunch of seperatists being neighbors.  We all have to face reality, there are laws, there will be taxes AND we do have a responsibility to each other.  In the 1700's they shunned those that were not productive in their society....perhaps this could be an option?

I wonder how this will ever come to be when people can't even take the time to hear each other out in this forum.  Instead of just tuning someone out because you don't agree with them, why not try either educating or listenning, whichever fits best. Peace :)
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: SteveA on October 31, 2003, 02:12:54 pm
Quote
To live with others we all are held accountable to each other.  And I am NOT speaking of LAWS or TAXES or forcing one to give up their hard earned money to another.  MORALS!!!

I think we all realize that there will always be people who, at least for a period of time, don't fit into society.  We currently have prisons, mental hospitals, rehabilitation clinics and ways of isolating them from the general population forcefully.  There will be no difference in a free state.  The only difference is what rational (morality) is used to determine when someones actions become detrimental to others.

We all basically agree that what one person does privately, if it doesn't harm anyone else, doesn't justify use of force (legal action) against them.  There will be grey areas, but in general being offended or considering oneself exposed to witnessing what we might consider dangerous actions does not imply legal action is necessary.  If someone jumps off a cliff, noone is required to follow.  If someone doesn't listen to warnings and stands dangerously close to the edge of a cliff, is that justification to call the police to arrest him?  I think the consensus here is no.  Children IMO are different.  They are expected to be taught by their parents to not jump off high places, and an adult that tells a child to jump off a cliff could be held accountable for that.  Children don't normally do that, and it's a matter of understanding the consequences.

I think we are all basically accountable for providing adequate warning of what consequences may results, when we encourage someone else to perform an action.

It is difficult to give a child adequate warning.  So even if you warned the child of the dangers of jumping off a cliff, but them encouraged them to do it.  The mental abilities of the child are developed enough to weight the issue in what we may consider a sane fashion.  The same could possibly apply to an adult who is mentally retarded.

If we have special knowledge beyond the obvious consequences of an action, and encourage someone to perform the action, we can potentially be held accountable for not informing the person of the special circumstances.  This could be considered fraud.  Once again it comes down to promoting an action by someone while knowing they don't have the knowledge to make a fair decision.  For example, if I sell a car to someone, and I know it's a total lemon and will break in three days, whether or not they ask, not providing such crucial information could be considered fraud.

Regarding drugs specifically, I was thinking that even with legal drugs, irresponsible distribution could hold legal consequences.  Just as a doctor can be held accountable for prescribing the wrong medication, or a food manufacturer can be held responsible for food poisoning, so can a drug manufacturer or salesman be held accountable.  We currently have information contained with prescription drugs that describe adverse reactions etc.  Even if the warnings aren't printed on a label, those knowledgeable of dangerous side effects or health risks are liable for falsely representing their product.  If a store sold cocaine lollipops in the candy section with M&Ms (the regular chocolate type, not Marajuana Munchies), legal action could be taken.

I personally would image legalizing drugs wouldn't be too different from what we have today.  Alcohol is behind the shelf, and purchasable by adults so children don't grab an Old English, and I don't think with legalized drugs, you'd have parsley and marajuana next to each other in the fresh vegetables section.  It likely would remain similar to how it is.  Just because someone is allowed to use pain killers, doesn't mean they can head down to the school yard to supply their clientel.

Anyway, that's my views on it.  Your mileage may vary.

Yes, we will have people that don't fit into society, as we do now.  And forceful incarceration can't be ruled out for someone who repeated demonstrates a lack of recognizing their actions are harming others.  We should try to warn them and give them options when possible, but in the end they are accountable for their own decisions.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Kyle on October 31, 2003, 04:32:18 pm
ok ONE) I do NOT support Welfare or Tax funded programs
    TWO) I am a REALIST

I agree with people doing what they want and all BUT  when i say accountable to society I am NOT speaking of LAWS...I am speaking of our responsibility to each other.  To live with others we all are held accountable to each other.  And I am NOT speaking of LAWS or TAXES or forcing one to give up their hard earned money to another.  MORALS!!!  Or, are those gone in the free state to.  Being a realist I look at EVERYTHING on all sides, as I said before, NOT just the side that makes my point valid.

And MORPHEUS.....no crack here and I am relaxed.  I just get tired of people thinking they can create a perfect world for themselves ONLY.  I thought that was for Seperatists.  We are trying to create a COMMUNITY where there are less laws not NO LAWS, where we don't have to worry if our tax dollars go to an organization we don't approve of orwhere our free-will and choice is not infringed upon. BUT still.......it is a COMMUNITY not a bunch of seperatists being neighbors.  We all have to face reality, there are laws, there will be taxes AND we do have a responsibility to each other.  In the 1700's they shunned those that were not productive in their society....perhaps this could be an option?

I wonder how this will ever come to be when people can't even take the time to hear each other out in this forum.  Instead of just tuning someone out because you don't agree with them, why not try either educating or listenning, whichever fits best. Peace :)
If you believe what you said here and you don't think tax money should be taken from some to restore others, then I think we're all in agreement.  Most people do have compassion and many will support causes to help those who have fallen.  I will gladly support causes for the fallen, provided I have a strong belief that the person can be restored to being a productive individual.  The free state doesn't prohibit people from caring about others, and people will care.  As long as you don't advocate forcing anyone to fund any program, we're all in agreement.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: radracer on November 01, 2003, 02:21:09 am
RhythmStar said: Also, I see no reason not to tack extra penalties on when crimes are committed while under the influence.

That's typical of government punitive behavior but not libertarian practice. We believe in punishing ONLY for a crime committed not for the reason it may have happened, e.g. we don't believe in hate crimes. If someone attacks you or runs into you his motive is unimportant only that he did it. Different people are not special people, they deserve no special protections. By the same token your assessment of the risk generated by drinking is for YOUR consideration when YOU drink. This type of government is about SELF-government. I personally have driven home stinking drunk thousands of times despite the propaganda of big government that says I shouldn't have been able to.

I agree with atr when he says:  
We should outlaw behaviors for being offensive?

Quite right, we should not of course. Smoking cigarrettes is considered by some offensive; we can't get into drawing lines on freedom based on offending people. That will lead us to banning smoking eventually as they have done in Dallas (and all over) and we will end up only a few degrees more free than we are currently.

The Plano Texan said, Are you insinuating that I could take my six-year-old to the grocery store and witness a "fat orgy" on the corner?

Welcome Plano Texan. I grew up in Plano and my folks still live there. Most of us will require unlearning a lot of socially conservative fears in order to see what will happen in reality when REAL freedom is available. Growing up in socially conservative Plano I know where you are coming from, the land of conservatism.
First off the STORE you mention in your statement will obviously be owned by someone as will any sidewalk frontage, yard etc.
 What store owner would permit an orgy in his store? None.
Secondly, what man can "perform" when a crowd of people laugh and joke out loud about his gut, (or other deficiencies) and wouldn't be embarrassed into running and hiding? i.e. such a scene is impractical and would not happen anyway.

I totally agree with Reaper when he says: The VAST majority of drug users are very functional people.  They work, pay taxes, support themselves and their families and you probably know more than a few and just aren't even aware of their "hobby". I hung out in Dallas who did every drug imaginable for decades and most went to work every day.


Unlike ProteusLizz who says, "even if u legalize drugs on a state, county or city level the price will not go down."
Wrong, I believe they will. The FBI's stats show that most inner city crime and murders occur because of theft due to the high prices of ILLEGAL drugs. You can make damn near any drug within a given community, it need not be transported TO our Free state, it can be created there or grown there. Trust me on this subject I know what I am talking about. That means the prices should be a fraction of that which causes stress on a person's budget.

 The other problem faced by drug users is, of course the random drug tests given them by most employers in the land where the drug war is healthy.
Because of this they have problems holding a job and therefore having money to purchase their drug of choice. That is one time when they are forced to steal. There would be few (if any) employers in the Free State administering these. Bill Gates tried them and lost 85% of his "creative staff" and now in the IT industry there is almost NO drug testing. I worked in it, I know. Many in that industry do drugs. People who do drugs don't show up wasted as the
old drug war rhetoric would have you believe. You can't stay wasted forever and you wouldn't want to.

Morpheus: As for the drug users who become so dehabilitated as to be unable to take care of themselves any longer, as said by others here, private charity shall attend to them if this is the will of generous souls. Otherwise.. they'll die.
I, quite frankly, couldn't care less.

To this statement
ProteusLizz said why not try either educating. Morpheus was educating you to our stand on people who expect to be taken care of officially. Realistically some people will care for them; who? Doesn't matter, that's not our concern here. If no one does then they'd better call a friend or their parents to put them in rehab because we won't take care of them and in reality that's what would happen. There, now you're educated.  Sorry if I sound harsh but your tone is one of experience where you have none and also not indicative of having any experience in libertarian or otherwise self-governing environments. The job of this forum is to discuss topics not take on your entire libertarian education. Try reading any of the works of Harry Browne, David Bergland or Dr. Mary Ruwart. Then come back to discuss with us. Don't mean to alienate you but educating you will slow down the debate topics too much.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: LeopardPM on November 15, 2003, 03:47:48 am
wow radacer!
yes indeed that was harsh!  and I say too harsh!  look at the forum this thread is in 'Prospective Members' - where else could people begin their journey of knowledge in libertarianism or of how a free society might REALISTICALLY work?  that is all she was doing, why take the condemning tone?

ProteusLizz:
I apologize for the welcome you received here, some have answered your questions 'by the book' by may not have answered your 'how would it really work?' underlying question.

So, drugs are legalized, prices fall etc etc.  Addicts (or anyone) that has a difficult time maintaining their life (paying rent, buying food, etc) will indeed fall upon very hard times.  If they do not have friends, family, relatives that are willing to reach out a helping hand, there will be other organizations (private) that will be available: churches, Moms Against Drugs, etc.  They main difference between a private group and 'the government' is that the 'help' given will be more closely monitored, it will be clear to the individual receiving aid EXACTLY who's money it is they are receiving and what the conditions and expectations are in the deal.  There will be a definite 'If you continue to use drugs, you will not get any more aid from me' type of condition AND if the person violates the 'rules' he will be out on his arse.  I imagine that if a person continues to destroy themselves and never makes any improvement along the lines of restricting/abolishing their own drug use, then there will probably be an Organization which provides free one-way bus tickets across country to California with a hearty slap on the back and a 'Have fun!' as they get on the bus.  Yes, shipping 'societies' problems away is not a solution, BUT, the person has failed to take any aid so what can be done with them?  Put them in jail?  kill them?  the only other thing to do is let them die in the snow, but, we couldn't stand for that either...

In regard to your statements:
Quote
I am speaking of our responsibility to each other.  

it is pretty fundamental in libertarian beliefs that you have a responsibility to yourself - you cannot be responsible for others (children not included).  Next, you have family, then neighbors, then town, etc   But, it is morally wrong to force someone to take responsibility for themselves or others... it is morally correct to let someone suffer from the conseqences of their own actions tho.  Lets make an example:  the Free state is located in New Hampshire (or IS NH).  NH has some pretty cold winters.  It is legal for people to go outside in the dead of winter without a coat or appropriate clothing.  Most people know better.  Those that do not know better are usually informed of the possible risks by their friends and family.  those that choose to disregard all this evidence and still run out into the snow naked will suffer the consequences; frost bite, extreme pain, possibly death.  If they do survive, they will probably not continue the practice and all is better.  If they do not survive then it is not 'societies' fault, their families fault, or anyones fault AND it is not right for people to start wringing their hands about this grand problem of naked people dying in the snow and so we (as in 'society') must do something about it.  let me rephrase, it is fine for people to care about others and possible gather like minded individuals together, form an organization that helps naked snow people - BUT, it is not right for that organization to petition government and take money from others to fund their programs.

I do hope you take radracers advice and read up on Libertarianism - you will find the answers to many of these questions dealt with in a format more easily understood.  It is what I did when discovering about liberty and freedom.  I also recommend 'Machinery of Freedom' by David friedman (gives alot of situational examples).

feel free to email any questions you have in the meantime: leopardpm@yahoo.com

Quote
I just get tired of people thinking they can create a perfect world for themselves ONLY.

once you understand the principles of liberty and the basic workings of an unhindered free Market, you will come to find that it really is only thru SELF-INTEREST that the 'perfect' world can actually come about - it is not about being consumed with vanity or greed, but with taking responsibility for yourself and your needs/wants/desires.

michael
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: RhythmStar on November 19, 2003, 11:09:19 am
RhythmStar said: Also, I see no reason not to tack extra penalties on when crimes are committed while under the influence.

That's typical of government punitive behavior but not libertarian practice. We believe in punishing ONLY for a crime committed not for the reason it may have happened, e.g. we don't believe in hate crimes.

FWIW, my statement had nothing to do with "hate crimes".  Rather, it stems from a belief that with freedom comes responsibility.  Freedom to legally indulge in any mind-altering substance you wish comes with the responsibility to do so in a manner that does not put the lives and property of others at risk.  To do otherwise is at the very least a case of criminal negligence.   This is a fair trade -- freedom to use in return for accountability for the consequences of irresponsible use.

RS
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: rdeacon on November 19, 2003, 02:20:42 pm
If Libertarianism was not best for society, I would have my doubts about being a libertarian.  Look at what drug legalization does:

- Frees up billions of dollars annually between ending drug war funding and reallocating resources at the state and local level
- Frees up thousands of security, police, and military officers
- Gets us out of many south american nations
- Frees up space in prison so we aren't letting rapists and murderers go free to make room for addicts and dealers
- Legitimizes and makes safer recreational drug use
- Lowers costs so addicts aren't going to the poor house to fund a habit
- etc, etc, etc
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Kyle on November 19, 2003, 07:18:17 pm
RhythmStar said: Also, I see no reason not to tack extra penalties on when crimes are committed while under the influence.

That's typical of government punitive behavior but not libertarian practice. We believe in punishing ONLY for a crime committed not for the reason it may have happened, e.g. we don't believe in hate crimes.

FWIW, my statement had nothing to do with "hate crimes".  Rather, it stems from a belief that with freedom comes responsibility.  Freedom to legally indulge in any mind-altering substance you wish comes with the responsibility to do so in a manner that does not put the lives and property of others at risk.  To do otherwise is at the very least a case of criminal negligence.   This is a fair trade -- freedom to use in return for accountability for the consequences of irresponsible use.

RS

Why should the reason matter?  If someone careens his car into me, I want him punished.  Whether the reason was drug use or the fact that he was digging around for loose change is irrelevant.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: RhythmStar on November 20, 2003, 04:51:20 pm
RhythmStar said: Also, I see no reason not to tack extra penalties on when crimes are committed while under the influence.

That's typical of government punitive behavior but not libertarian practice. We believe in punishing ONLY for a crime committed not for the reason it may have happened, e.g. we don't believe in hate crimes.

FWIW, my statement had nothing to do with "hate crimes".  Rather, it stems from a belief that with freedom comes responsibility.  Freedom to legally indulge in any mind-altering substance you wish comes with the responsibility to do so in a manner that does not put the lives and property of others at risk.  To do otherwise is at the very least a case of criminal negligence.   This is a fair trade -- freedom to use in return for accountability for the consequences of irresponsible use.

RS

Why should the reason matter?  

Because the reason speaks to intent and intent is a well-established component of gauging the seriousness of criminal acts.   Killing someone might be an accident (no crime), or an act of negligence (as in negligent homicide), or an unintentional result of a some act of force (involuntary manslaughter), or actual manslaughter, but you don't actually have murder in the first degree unless you have malice aforethought, and you don't have an automatic death penalty in CA without special circumstances, such as 'lying in wait'.  Driving a car is not necessarily a crime, but driving in a reckless manner puts the life and property of others at unreasonable risk, and that force against others is (and should be) actionable.  In concept, this is no different than discharging a firearm in a densely-populated residential area -- you might not have shot anyone that time, but keep it up and you will.   Folks have no moral obligation to wait for the corpse before protecting themselves.

Quote
If someone careens his car into me, I want him punished.  Whether the reason was drug use or the fact that he was digging around for loose change is irrelevant.

That seems to me to be a rather unreasonable, even vindictive position.  What if the mishap were no fault of the driver's?  Perhaps a mechanical failure as a result of sabotage, or a manufacturer's defect?  A sneeze?  By your own words, you want to hold the driver accountable for irresponsible and/or reckless behavior.  What is the objection to taking that to its logical end and specifying different punishments for differing levels of willful recklessness?   Isn't speeding through a school zone while nearly comatose on barbiturates a more serious case of willful recklessness than digging for toll change while approaching a toll booth?

Taking drugs in private is a peaceful act that ought to be as well-protected as any individual right.  Taking incapacitating drugs and then operating dangerous machinery in public places is an act of aggression and willful disregard for the lives and property of your fellow citizens.   It helps not to confuse the two.  :)

RS
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Kyle on November 20, 2003, 05:41:47 pm
Except you didn't say that drugs should be used to determine intent.  You specifically said that extra penalties should be "tacked on" for using drugs during a crime.  That is entirely different, and akin to hate crimes.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: BlueLu on November 20, 2003, 06:50:24 pm
There was a discussion of this in the youth section several weeks ago.  One poster was arguing that if you kill someone while drinking and driving, it should aggravate the crime to the status of murder.  I disagreed, and said it should not be murder, because murder is always intentional killing.  But I do agree that the charge of manslaughter should be aggravated by the perpetrator's engaging in action that (s)he knows (or should know) might impare their ability to drive safely.

In other words, a drunk driver (or impared by other drugs) who is at fault in a traffic accident, where someone dies as a result, should be punished more harshly than someone who was sober, but misjudged a speed or distance, or something.  A narcoleptic who chose to drive should be liable to the same sort of increased punishment, if (s)he had any reason to believe his/her condition might not be under control when they chose to drive.  But I would think that the class of punishment for these vehicular-manslaughter-while-reaction-impared crimes would still be less than that for an intentional murder.

On the other hand, legal penalties for just being drug-impared when you do not have any responsibilties to be alert, are not justifiable.  Otherwise, it could be punishable if you did not check your stove 4 times before leaving your house.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: rdeacon on November 20, 2003, 07:39:56 pm
Agreed.  Penalties should be harsher if the vehicular manslaughter is committed by a person under the influence of alcohol or drugs.  Misjudging distance is an honest mistake, but getting into the driver's seat under the influence is a dangerous, intentional action that spits in the face of personal responsibility.  
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: LeopardPM on November 22, 2003, 07:30:10 am
Agreed.  Penalties should be harsher if the vehicular manslaughter is committed by a person under the influence of alcohol or drugs.  Misjudging distance is an honest mistake, but getting into the driver's seat under the influence is a dangerous, intentional action that spits in the face of personal responsibility.  
so hard to determine if the 'misjudging distance' was due to the alcohol or would have happened anyway.... a nice big gray loophole that lawyers love to drive their trucks thru...

I say penalties should be the same - Effect based penalties - If someone dies due to being hit by another who lost control of their vehicle, it matters not if it was because of their radio being too loud, or alcohol, or the baby crying in the back seat - the only truth is that they lost control and THAT was the offense - it is not illegal to be distracted or under the influence - tis a seperate issue.

a hard stance to defend, I admit...
michael
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: rdeacon on November 22, 2003, 11:32:49 am
I don't see a loophole.  If you hit somebody and you are under the influence of a drug or alcohol, it doesn't matter what you claim caused the accident, your being under the influence aggrevates your charge.  I'm also in favor of increased penalties for crimes commited with a firearm.  

so hard to determine if the 'misjudging distance' was due to the alcohol or would have happened anyway.... a nice big gray loophole that lawyers love to drive their trucks thru...

I say penalties should be the same - Effect based penalties - If someone dies due to being hit by another who lost control of their vehicle, it matters not if it was because of their radio being too loud, or alcohol, or the baby crying in the back seat - the only truth is that they lost control and THAT was the offense - it is not illegal to be distracted or under the influence - tis a seperate issue.

a hard stance to defend, I admit...
michael
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: LeopardPM on November 22, 2003, 02:25:03 pm
rdeacon,
let me restate the problem - sometimes I am not very good at making the point that I am trying...

you say that basically 'being impaired' increases or aggravates the risk of harm to others.  This is not an 'absolute' determination - can you state what level of risk increase should be the dividing line?  For instance, if alcohol increases the risk of causing an accident by 3% (from lets say 1% normally to 4% impaired), and we agree to say that "anything that a person chooses to do that increases the risk of harm to others by 3% or more shall be illegal.  We should by universal in our application of law right?  Not haphazardly choosing whatever pet fad is popular at the time or else the 'law' will be used as a method for perks and varying degrees af law being manipulated by money and politics.  So, to be universal and say 3% increase is illegal - that might also include applying make-up or talking on a cell phone or eating/drinking/smoking while driving - might even be used to convict people of 'driving while under the stress to go pee' as I am sure there are plenty of accidents aggravated by peoples desire to get to a restroom also.  See how it doesn't exactly jive?

The other thing is that this 'increase in risk'  is an arbitrary figure.  Harm is definite and absolute - if you punch me it is universally apparent that you caused me harm.  If you get in a car after drinking 2 beers you are not harming me - only when you actually cause harm by causing an accident.  Not black & white, neat and clean - nice big grey area and open to 'public' interpetation...

Perhaps I am still not getting the point across...

michael
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: RhythmStar on November 23, 2003, 12:07:48 pm
Except you didn't say that drugs should be used to determine intent.  You specifically said that extra penalties should be "tacked on" for using drugs during a crime.  That is entirely different, and akin to hate crimes.

Not at all. You misjudge my intent. :)  

To me, taking mind-altering drugs is something you do intentionally and with reasonable precautions.  Taking ketamine as a precursor to a drive in the park is not reasonable, it is acting in a manner that is criminally negligent.

Furthermore, it is the individual's responsibility to understand their own tolerance for the effects of these substances -- if taking a little methamphetamine is likely to send you into a manic fugue state, wherein you feel the irresistible compulsion to burn down apartment buildings, well, you should abstain.  If you do not, and you are subsequently busted for arson, then the fact that you committed the crime primarily because you chose to take a drug that you couldn't handle is not a justification.  Rather, it is a point towards additional culpability for criminal negligence.   Adding fines and/or jail time for criminal negligence is not "hate crimes", it is a fair accounting of the behavior being addressed (and hopefully deterred).

Keep in mind that I think any adult should be able to walk in and buy any drug they feel like buying, from absinth to Zoloft.   However, for such a freedom to work and endure, those who choose to do so MUST act responsibly, or pay the price.  If they do not, regardless of what libertarians think, then drugs will quickly be recriminalized -- we live in a cause-and-effect universe, and no amount of political theorizing can ever change that.

RS
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Kelton Baker on November 23, 2003, 10:10:11 pm
...

To me, taking mind-altering drugs is something you do intentionally and with reasonable precautions.  Taking ketamine as a precursor to a drive in the park is not reasonable, it is acting in a manner that is criminally negligent.

Furthermore, it is the individual's responsibility to understand their own tolerance for the effects of these substances -- if taking a little methamphetamine is likely to send you into a manic fugue state, wherein you feel the irresistible compulsion to burn down apartment buildings, well, you should abstain.  If you do not, and you are subsequently busted for arson, then the fact that you committed the crime primarily because you chose to take a drug that you couldn't handle is not a justification.  Rather, it is a point towards additional culpability for criminal negligence.   Adding fines and/or jail time for criminal negligence is not "hate crimes", it is a fair accounting of the behavior being addressed (and hopefully deterred).

Keep in mind that I think any adult should be able to walk in and buy any drug they feel like buying, from absinth to Zoloft.   However, for such a freedom to work and endure, those who choose to do so MUST act responsibly, or pay the price.  If they do not, regardless of what libertarians think, then drugs will quickly be recriminalized -- we live in a cause-and-effect universe, and no amount of political theorizing can ever change that.


I'm holding on to this post,  that is some very good insight.  With freedom comes responsibility,  you have persuaded me even more in some of my views on this, I like your way of making it so clear in this post.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: LeopardPM on November 23, 2003, 10:28:59 pm
Kelton,
Mr. RhythmStar is a very intelligent man with a dash of ethics and insight which is gladly welcomed in any discussion I participate in - look to som of his other posts and you you find that he is rather consistent and very interesting... he has many good ideas, and alot of references/research - a very valuable person to maintain contact with...

psst - Rhythm - so where do I collect my $20 from now?

michael
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: RhythmStar on November 24, 2003, 12:11:17 am
Aw, shucks!   :-[
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: rdeacon on November 24, 2003, 11:15:25 am
Actually my point is very simple:

What should be punished more: a situation that is pure accident, or an accidental situation enabled by irresponsibility?  Yes, this includes fiddling with the radio, talking on cell phones, etc (though such causes are not as easily proved as alcohol and drug use).  I don't think that a person should be pulled over strictly for talking on a cell phone, hell, I've written op-eds against it.  However, if you knowingly increase the risk of an event occuring and that event does occur, than you're responsible moreso than if you were studiously driving along and you accidentally misjudged a distance.  There should be, IMHO, a legal distinction between an honest mistake and a crime that is enabled by irresponsiblity.

rdeacon,
let me restate the problem - sometimes I am not very good at making the point that I am trying...

you say that basically 'being impaired' increases or aggravates the risk of harm to others.  This is not an 'absolute' determination - can you state what level of risk increase should be the dividing line?  For instance, if alcohol increases the risk of causing an accident by 3% (from lets say 1% normally to 4% impaired), and we agree to say that "anything that a person chooses to do that increases the risk of harm to others by 3% or more shall be illegal.  We should by universal in our application of law right?  Not haphazardly choosing whatever pet fad is popular at the time or else the 'law' will be used as a method for perks and varying degrees af law being manipulated by money and politics.  So, to be universal and say 3% increase is illegal - that might also include applying make-up or talking on a cell phone or eating/drinking/smoking while driving - might even be used to convict people of 'driving while under the stress to go pee' as I am sure there are plenty of accidents aggravated by peoples desire to get to a restroom also.  See how it doesn't exactly jive?

The other thing is that this 'increase in risk'  is an arbitrary figure.  Harm is definite and absolute - if you punch me it is universally apparent that you caused me harm.  If you get in a car after drinking 2 beers you are not harming me - only when you actually cause harm by causing an accident.  Not black & white, neat and clean - nice big grey area and open to 'public' interpetation...

Perhaps I am still not getting the point across...

michael
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: LeopardPM on November 24, 2003, 11:52:33 am
rdeacon,

Do you agree with the following statement:

When anyone gets in their car, and proceeds to venture out onto the roadway, the risk of accident has increased to all other drivers.

if you do agree, then we can agree that the question is one of 'amount of risk increase' - somethine we can define and hold true to...

michael
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: RhythmStar on November 24, 2003, 01:45:54 pm
rdeacon,

Do you agree with the following statement:

When anyone gets in their car, and proceeds to venture out onto the roadway, the risk of accident has increased to all other drivers.

if you do agree, then we can agree that the question is one of 'amount of risk increase' - somethine we can define and hold true to...

michael

FWIW, I agree with that statement and find the concept of 'amount of risk' a very useful one.  

For drugs, it should be possible to quantify risk by placing the individual in a driving simulator and administering drugs that approximate the blood levels at the time of the accident.   If they are shown to be impaired, then the amount of impairment can be used to calculate the added risk.  If they are shown to be capable despite their drugged state, then their risk factor is considered normal.

BTW, I suggest this as a voluntary test available to those who voluntarily submitted to testing at the time of the accident.  Otherwise, I guess the courts would have to proceed based on officer and witness testimony, much as today.

RS
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: rdeacon on November 25, 2003, 01:50:03 pm
Agreed, it is for that reason that there is any punishment at all for vehicular manslaughter.

I don't think that the question is specifically *amount* of risk increase, but rather "risk increase due to irresponsibility".  Once again, I don't know if I mentioned this here, but I'm a Constitutionalist, I think that the states should decide whether or not to implement Irresponsibility Penalties, though I would be in favor of them.

rdeacon,

Do you agree with the following statement:

When anyone gets in their car, and proceeds to venture out onto the roadway, the risk of accident has increased to all other drivers.

if you do agree, then we can agree that the question is one of 'amount of risk increase' - somethine we can define and hold true to...

michael
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: thrivetacobell on February 01, 2004, 11:39:53 am

   As for drunk driving, i'm rather an 'extremist' (?) in my outlook. I believe wholeheartedly in individual responsibility, and insomuch do not believe in drinking and driving laws so much as i believe in accountability. Legislation could exist but not be enforced lest an individual show complete disregard for themselves and cause some havoc on the roads. If an individual decides to drink and drive they run the risk  of being responsible for causing an accident, to the loss of life or property. Once an accident occurs, a crime has been committed and the perpetrator should be prosecuted  to the fullest extent of the law. The consequances of driving drunk  far outweigh the benefits, which would be, um... getting home sooner? As far as i'm concerned, the risk is yours, and some risks aren't worth taking.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: grinder on February 09, 2004, 07:45:00 pm
Quote
But you still have a choice. You can look away.
Not until I've seen it to know to look away.
Quote
Or cover your eyes.
Not until I've seen it to know to cover my eyes.
I didn't have time to read through all the other posts, so I don't know if anyone has addressed the issue of what constitutes real harm. I like the definition of harm (or infringement of liberty) as being only actual physical harm. How can one person be held responsible for how another reacts to his/her actions (that don't harm someone else) or speech?  Speech does not and cannot produce any real harm as defined above, unless the person hearing that speech chooses to react violently to the speech. Acting in a way that may be offensive to someone else cannot be seen as an infringement of liberty because the person has a choice on how to react to it.

In a free society we would not have the right to impose our puritanical views of proper behavior on other people, because that eliminates choice. In the case of the orgy on the sidewalk, there is no infringement of rights. Since there are no inherent rights granted by the universe, rights are only a manifestation intelligent beings, who form societies in order to guarntee (to what extent there can be a guarantee) the agreed upon rights. No one can guarantee the right not to be exposed to something, thus there can be no right not to be exposed to something.
By being exposed to something you find deplorable, your choice is not limited in any way. There are numerous ways to deal with this situation. To say that your right to choose not to be exposed to orgies is violated by seeing an orgy on the corner is like saying that your right to choose not to be exposed to rain is violated by the clouds when they rain. The clouds, though governed by laws we only somewhat have a grasp on, for all intents and purposes experience total liberty. They can let loose the rain whenever and whereever. That's not to imply that I believe clouds have any form conscious thought. In the same way man is limited by possibility and, if he chooses a society in which he can be as free as the clouds, is causing no real harm by participating in an orgy on the corner.

Good book to read (short story actually) is Coventry by Robert Heinlein.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: kater on February 13, 2004, 03:25:21 pm
If we're going to start recommending reading (which is usually a good idea), considering grinder's weather analogy, I'll suggest Bastiat's petition to block out the sun for the benefit of candlemakers, lampmakers, etc.  http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

The truly sad thing about our current state is that people have come to expect protection from life itself.  Thousands of years ago, Greek citizens ran in terror from the Persians; today Americans run in terror from Janet Jackson's right breast.  The ridiculousness of our desire for blinders is almost inexpressible.  

As for thrivetacobell's argument, I'm at a loss to see how we would benefit (in terms of liberty) from the existence of laws that would be unenforced.  Actually, I wish every law on the books were enforced as stringently as governmentally possible--then the extent of our servitude would be too evident to dispute.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: kater on February 13, 2004, 03:32:21 pm
To add another tidbit, I have to bring up school vouchers in this context--or any "permission" to act that exists as an exemption from otherwise applicable laws.  When will people understand that nothing comes from nothing?  That the government provides neither programs nor exemptions without continuing to demand tribute every April 15th?  

I don't want a partial refund, or temporary permission to act as I please--I want the government to get the hell out of my decision-making process.  If I don't send kids to public school, and I choose not to support it, I shouldn't have to PAY the taxes to fund education in the first place.  Let alone have them "refunded" to someone else!!

Or (to get back to the thread topic), perhaps if I don't believe in the war on drugs, the DEA or the ATF, I shouldn't have to fund their propaganda.  The Supreme Court has long since decided that money qualifies as political speech (with whatever caveats are included under the convoluted umbrella of campaign finance reform).  So why am I sponsoring ads against marijuana?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: thrivetacobell on February 13, 2004, 04:13:10 pm
  Right you are, Kater... I am thinking too much on what could be done within the confines we now have. Definately, once there was a state of just laws formed out of respect for individual responsiblility rather than political expedience, enforce those laws to the fullest extent.

   And if laws as they are now were truly carried out to their full extent, wht an eye opener that would be.
   A brief example: The other day i was driving with my buddy, whose inspection sticker was two months expired. Kept joshin' with him about how i hope he gets pulled over and taught a lesson about how intrusive the state is... We get pulled over in Essex, Ma.,and my buddy is all apologetic, promises to get it fixed Monday... The cop asks 'you promise?'  And lets him go. This is the same town where they twice got me for motor vehicle infractions, towed my car, left me in the middle of nowhere...  Man, that pissed me off. He'll probably vote for Kerry as a real alternative to Bush.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Lothar on February 14, 2004, 07:01:36 am
There should be a penalty for driving under the influence or operating heavy machinery. Beyond that, as long as you aren't hurting anyone, drug intoxication should not be penalized.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Tyler V on March 09, 2004, 05:31:37 am
I still cant beleive that this concept of punishing thought (thought-crime, if you will) is still being argued.  Becuase that is exactly what any law is if it is not punishing the infringement of someone elses right to life, liberty  and property.  What is it we are punishing when we make laws against intoxication other than a persons thoughts, their state of mind?  Are we to punish the POSIBILITY of a crime, or the hightened risk level that a crime might be commited?  Intent?  How far back do we go?  The thoughts leading up to the decision to highten the risk of a crime being commited?  These are all very serious questions, none of which i am comfortable putting in the hands of any government.  Plain and simple, a free state cannot protect the right of all individuals to not be at risk.  By doing this we must, in some manner, directly deprive another individual of his/her rights.  So, do we directly deprive someone else of his/her rights all of the time,  and by doing this protect a much smaller percentage of the populations rights occasionaly?  Or do we not liegislate the control of a persons mental state, thereby protecting his right to free thought all of the time, and by doing this realize that occasionaly someone elses rights will be violated by this action?  This could be a basic tenant of free thought right here.  How would you answer this question, and what does your answer say about your true feelings on individual freedom?

P.S.  Also, I would very much like to see what would happen if a society did not legislate any aspect of drug and alcohol production, distribution, and consumption, yet had very strict laws on infringing on another persons basic rights, i.e. physical harm and financial/property damage.  The American public is really not that bright right now, but given the opportunity to think for themselves and take repsonsibility for their own lives, with no safety nets and guarantees, they just might start thinking again.  
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: LeopardPM on March 09, 2004, 07:11:00 am
yes!

self-responsibility is learned, often at great pain and failure - that is why it will take over a generation for true libertarianism to fully begin to work - we need to retrain ourselves and our children, teach the next generation how to exist in a world where government dependece is not a possibility and what the true costs are for every action...

michael
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: thrivetacobell on March 09, 2004, 11:40:39 am
<<self-responsibility is learned, often at great pain and failure>>

So true and right... but one thing you forgot to mention is that, no matter the suffering, the rewards are invaluable.

Reality is a hard master, but infinitely just.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: LeopardPM on March 09, 2004, 11:51:25 am
amen
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: penguinsscareme on March 09, 2004, 12:44:46 pm
Public orgies?
Do we really think people are going to be able to handle that?  Or do we have some shred of common sense left?
Sorry, walking down the street minding my own business and happening upon an orgy on the sidewalk is a little bit more freedom than I can handle.
Sometimes when I hear these discussions start to completely leave the realm of what's realistic, I ask myself, if Washington, or Adams, or Jefferson, or any of the other Founders were sitting down with me, would I be able to pitch this idea to them?  They loved freedom enough to give their lives for a slim chance of attaining it, understood it enough to give us the Constitution.

A person's decision to do stupid things like drugs is his own business until he hurts someone else.  I'll go a step further and say until he endangers someone else.  And where exactly do we draw that line?  That's one of those things we have to leave to discretion.  It's too fuzzy to nail down.  I'm not waffling, either, so don't get p.o.'ed.  Probable cause is a fuzzy line, the founders made it that way on purpose.  It's okay to leave some things to common sense and discretion.  We don't have to nail down every minute detail.
Public orgies are just one of those things that is definitely over the line, even though the line is fuzzy.  It's not healthy for me to see an orgy.  It's not healthy for my daughter to see an orgy.  If nothing else, it's disturbing the peace!
I expect to be able to conduct my public business without having to dodge orgies or people dealing and shooting heroin.  If there's a well-soundproofed private bordello or drug den between me and my destination, I couldn't care less.  I draw the line around there somewhere.

See, this is what makes me nervous.  Sometimes it starts to sound like we're not only decriminalizing vice, but facilitating it.
Say what you want, but bear in mind that there are always potential members reading.  You represent us all when you post on this forum.  You can be right, but better to be right and smart than right and stupid.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: LeopardPM on March 09, 2004, 04:38:11 pm
penguin, isn't the problem with the 'public' part?  Do you care if people have orgies on their private property?  If you would rather not view these obscene circumstances, can you imagine any way that private individuals can, without force or government, make sure that they or their children will not be within view of such activities?

Quote
I expect to be able to conduct my public business without having to dodge orgies or people dealing and shooting heroin.
what is 'public' business?  don't you deal with people?  where does all this 'public' come from?

just wondering,
michael
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: penguinsscareme on March 09, 2004, 07:22:51 pm
If there's a well-soundproofed private bordello or drug den between me and my destination, I couldn't care less.

That's the next sentence, the one right after you stopped reading, evidently.
Public business is any business that takes me on public ways or to public places.  I suppose if the road from my house to the city hall is privately owned then I have no recourse.
Look, this is getting way outside the scope of reality here.  I'm certainly not going to go try and recruit people on the "public orgies and drug binges" platform.
As a wise man once said, you strain at a gnat but you swallow a camel.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Morpheus on March 09, 2004, 07:24:25 pm
I am offended by people reading their Bibles [Or Torahs or Korans] and praying in Public. I shouldn't have to see it, and there should be a Law against it. Furthermore, anyone wearing a cross [or crescent moon, or star of david] should be arrested on sight. I shouldn't have to be exposed to such religious filth.

I also don't like to see churches [or synagogues or mosques] on my way. My children shouldn't have to see it either. There should be specific places where they are allowed and NOT allowed- at my convenience, of course.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: penguinsscareme on March 09, 2004, 07:25:12 pm
Move to China.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Morpheus on March 09, 2004, 07:26:32 pm
My children shouldn't have to see it either. So there. And screw you if you disagree, because you hate children.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Morpheus on March 09, 2004, 07:28:07 pm
YOU move to ISRAEL! Go where your offensive, godly filth is fully endorsed and encouraged.

And your telling me to move to China was offensive. You should be arrested and fined for hurting my feelings like that.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: penguinsscareme on March 09, 2004, 07:51:20 pm
Enough, enough.  I'm not finding this humorous.
One of us needs to go stick his head in a bucket of cold water.
Let's have this argument after we've gotten to 20,000.
My point is that we're not going to reach that number if we try to invoke Constitutional protection for orgies and drug use on the courthouse steps as equal in validity to the right to be Catholic, Jewish, atheist or whatever.
You are arguing from a position of outright stupidity, and your satirical tone seems to indicate that you know it.
Look, you can malign me as a fascist nazi, but I'm just not able to endorse public orgies or drug use as a matter of conscience and common sense.
If you want to endorse cannabis bars like they have in Amsterdam, or private whorehouses like in Vegas, go ahead.  I'll sign on to that.  I'm in favor of personal freedom and individual rights and no vice laws.
But if you seriously want to take a hard line on this public orgy and drug use thing as a Constitutional right, you're going to have a real tough time.
Just try and pull your head out of this libertarian utopia that you're living in and smell the reality for a second.  Some famous libertarian who was obviously a lot smarter than you once said, I am first in favor of liberty, and then in favor of what works.  The same guy also said, when asked how much liberty does he want for the people, As much as they can handle.  I wish I still had that issue of Liberty magazine so I could tell you who it was.
Pick battles you can win.
Being right and being stupid are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I am not your enemy.  Instead of berating me for not wanting public orgies, go do something useful for the project.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: LeopardPM on March 09, 2004, 08:42:45 pm
I wasn't berating you - I was pointing out that it is very possible to concieve of a community wherein your desire, to have anything to do with or even view sexual behavior, is satisfied - AND, in that same community, have people have whatever wanton sex they desire:  all through the use of private property, deeds, covenants, easements and neighborhood associations.  No need for government coercion etc...

yes, of course we don't run on a platform of 'Happy Public Sex Orgies' - but, when we are asked if we, as liberty thinkers, believe that orgies should be allowed.... would you decide then to lie?  What I present is an acceptable (hopefully) argument which allows all manner of private activities to occur without the offending of statists (is it possible?)

michael
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: penguinsscareme on March 09, 2004, 09:37:08 pm
Look, I don't know how to be any clearer.  What happens on private property is private business, whether it's an orphanage or a bordello.  I have no problem with that, and if asked I will say so.
But Morpheus is equating having a fat orgy on the sidewalk in front of city hall with praying in public.  I'm sorry, that goes beyond the limits of my abilities to tolerate.  The very premise is so foolish I hardly know how to rebut it.
I never, ever said orgies should not be allowed.  But they shouldn't be allowed in public.  There, I said it.
All this talk about leaving everything up to the judgement of the individual -- how about showing enough judgement to realize this is a loser issue?  New Hampshire natives will hate us, and prospective members will fear us if we don't back off of this crap.  It just makes New Hampshire sound like the kind of place where no one of any decent character would want to live.  It is impossible to win this argument on a libertarian absolutist platform.  It's just not going to fly.
This sort of idiocy has got to stop if we're going to have any realistic expectation of casting a wide net.
I believe that most hardcore freedom lovers are people of exceptionally high moral character who will be quite put off by a perceived advocacy of wanton debauchery.
It's one thing to tacitly support the individual's right to engage in any sort of behavior they wish provided they don't infringe on anyone else, but this vehement flaunting of base, immoral practice is totally irresponsible.  It's getting to where people are going around looking for ways to be offensive.  Look at me, I have the right to be offensive and no one can stop me!  Like it or not, every word that gets posted on this forum represents the fsp, and people judge us -- fairly or not -- based on what they read here.  Especially the prospective members section.
So again I say, let's get to 20,000, then move to the Free State, and after we've kicked out the federal government, and abolished stupid taxes, and about a hundred other issues, then let's worry about where to have the orgies.
One other thing.  Everybody who had a say in the Constitution had to make changes, concessions and bargains.  No one got everything they wanted.  But they got a pretty good Constitution, and they got it ratified.  A good plan that works is better than a perfect plan that doesn't work.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: ethanpooley on March 09, 2004, 11:38:35 pm
I am a libertarian because I am convinced that government must be as principled as possible, due to the differences and shortcomings of individuals (and humanity collectively). So when considering whether something should be outlawed, my first question is always, 'on what principle would it be outlawed?'

Public orgies, for example, would be outlawed on the basis of 'common decency', an appeal to a majority opinion. Now when it comes right down to it, murder is outlawed by majority opinion as well, so this is not in itself a damning thing. Morality might motivate individuals, but it cannot really be said to be the foundation of a law. The immediate foundation of a law is the majority opinion, be their motivation what it may. But a law against public orgies is a majority opinion about something very different than is a law against murder.

So the principle here is, 'if it is indecent, it should not be allowed in public'. My second question is, 'do I trust the majority to apply the principle?', and here the answer is no. While I am not worried about the majority deciding that wearing a religious symbol is tantamount to murder (at least, not worried enough to want to allow murder!), I am worried about the majority deciding that wearing a religous symbol is as indecent as participating in an orgy. Especially when you recast 'indecent' as 'distasteful', which is more accurately descriptive of the visceral rule the majority would actually apply.

So I trust the government with the power to outlaw unjust things (such as murder, but as defined by the majority), but not with the power to outlaw indecent things (such as orgies, but as defined by the majority). Additionally, I ask myself whether I feel I have a right to restrict the action in question: government aside, would I be justified in using force to stop someone from committing the action? If the answer is no, then again it seems something that government should not be involved in. I don't want my children (or any children, frankly!) to see orgies on the way to school, but I wouldn't feel justified in using force to stop the act, or in using force to apply a deterent (such as a fine) to the act. The first would be like physically forcing the orgy to stop (if I was able to overpower them) at the time, the second would be like showing up at the orgyists (sp? :)) house after school and taking $30 from their wallet, again if I was able to overpower them. Whereas with murder, yeah I feel justified in forcing someone to stop committing murder, assuming I can overpower them.

Problems arise when outlawing indecent things in public settings as well. For example, what happens in our society when a person who doesn't want to wear any clothing is defrauded of some money? He can't take his complaint to court, can he? Not without putting some clothes on first. And so our less-important rights, like the right to not see naked people on the street (seems weird to call it a right at all, but for arguments sake...) end up creating conditions on what are supposed to be fundamental rights, such as the right to one's property.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: penguinsscareme on March 10, 2004, 05:35:45 am
For example, what happens in our society when a person who doesn't want to wear any clothing is defrauded of some money?

 ???Where was he keeping the money?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: bostnfound on March 10, 2004, 09:26:10 am

I believe that most hardcore freedom lovers are people of exceptionally high moral character who will be quite put off by a perceived advocacy of wanton debauchery.

Since when is an orgy immoral?  I would be much more comfortable seeing an orgy on a city street than a nativity scene or a statute of Lincoln.   I also would be more comfortable having my children see such an orgy.

No one is advocating having orgies spring up from street corner to street corner.  However we are advocating that if you see it, the gestapo shouldn't be called in to stop it.

As to high moral character, I agree, but our moral structure is obviously different.  My morals are based upon not taking the life, liberty or property of others.  What is your moral structure based upon?

Quote
A good plan that works is better than a perfect plan that doesn't work.

I will put it in the terms of thiests.  Should God compromise with the Devil if it meant they could come up with plan for earth more quickly?  Zero Aggression is right.  There should be no compromise on this situation.  Libertarian theory is based on being morally right as well as economically right.  Compromising on the basis of the theory totally debunks the simplicity of the theory itself.  

Aggression=Bad

Also, how can a perfect plan not work?  
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: penguinsscareme on March 10, 2004, 09:35:54 am
Furball, the problem is we're not in a vacuum.  This isn't a lab experiment or a purely philosophical discussion conducted within a controlled environment.  There is a real-world situation that we must acknowledge.

Years ago I lived in downtown Worcester, MA.  I walked to work every day, passing the "art theater" coming and going -- twice a day every day.  And the windows were blacked out, and there was no way to see inside from the street.  Yet if I wanted to go inside and patronize their business, I was perfectly free to do so.
Why is that not enough?
I am simply not able and not going to support a push to allow public orgies and public drug use.
What's more important, the Granite State rank and file are not going to support it.   :'(  Curse you, reality!  Curse you!
Two years ago, a Democrat named Shannon O'Brien ran against a Republican -- a non-Massachusetts native at that -- named Mitt Romney (you may remember him from the 2000 Olympics).  Massachusetts is an overwhelmingly Democrat state.  But nearly every swing vote in the state (votes from people who are not registered with either party) went Romney's way.  There were a number of factors, of course, but one of the most significant issues, probably the one that turned more soccermoms against O'Brien than any other issue, was abortion.  O'Brien lost what might have been a winnable race because she wanted free (taxpayer-funded), no-questions-asked, no parental consent -- or even knowledge! -- abortions on demand for girls as young as sixteen.  It's not that Romney pasted her on this issue; she gave as good as she got during the debates, and defended her position adequately.  But the voters were simply not ready for such a drastic policy.  She lost a race she might have won because she would not back down from the most controversial issue on her agenda.  Because nine tenths wasn't good enough, because she demanded all or nothing, she completely screwed the pooch.
There are issues we can use to win popular support.  Taxes.  Property rights.  The list is long.  But this is not one of those.  We can not win this.  Let's not make enemies of New Hampshirites before we even get there.  The approach thus far has been to work within already existing framework to get what we can.  Let's show some discernment between what we can and can not hope to get.  New Hampshire won because it's a conducive climate to our goals.  If we intended from the start to go toe to toe on stuff we have no chance of winning, we should have picked based on weather.  Then we could all chase futility in Hawaii instead of New Hampshire.  At least we'd be warm.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: bostnfound on March 10, 2004, 09:45:54 am

I am simply not able and not going to support a push to allow public orgies and public drug use.

There are issues we can use to win popular support.  Taxes.  

Where do you think the money comes to ban drug use?  Without taxes this point is moot.

Should we ban smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol in public too?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: penguinsscareme on March 10, 2004, 10:13:28 am
Should we ban smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol in public too?

So you're just determined to keep this discussion outside the realm of reality then?
Okay.  Well good luck with your agenda.  Let me know how that works out for you.
This shrill antagonism crap isn't going to get us anywhere.
Stop using the word "should," first of all.  Consider first whether we CAN get popular support for public orgies and drug use.  Obviously the question is so preposterous as to be hardly worth asking.
Textbook libertarian downfall:  all rhetoric, no action.  Can't see the forest for all the trees.
Get your head out of the clouds and get to work!
If you're really determined to push the issue, go here
http://freestateproject.org/getinvolved/liaisons/index.jsp
I'm sure Chris will be happy to set up a liaison for you so you can reach out to all those people who think it's a vitally important issue.  I doubt you'll get much feedback, but feel free to prove me wrong.
Just don't expect much cooperation from NH natives on your platform.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: ethanpooley on March 10, 2004, 11:30:37 am
penguinsscareme, I agree that the suggestion to allow public drug use does not, at first, belong on a campgain poster. But while I'm happy to not advertise it, I wouldn't want to hide it either. As I stated in my post, I believe that what libertarianism has to offer is principled government. I'm not a libertarian because I want public orgies; I don't want public orgies. I'm a libertarian because of what I do what - principled government - whether it means public orgies or no.

If, when pushed on the topic ("Oh yeah, well.... would you allow public orgies then!?"), I deny it, then to me it seems that I become just another random politician trying to stump for my particular wishlist; trying to offer the voter just what they want, and nothing they don't. But liberty isn't like that, and liberty is what I am trying to offer them. I would rather use it as an opportunity to teach them about libertarianism, and to prove to them that I really am willing to 'walk the walk' of the principles I espouse.

In other words, I am of the camp that thinks that a 'limited libertarian' approach to politics is doomed. Some people think that we are optimists and head-in-the-clouds idealists, because all we talk about is principle and philosophy. But I believe it's because we are pessimists that we do so; we believe that an (apparently) unprincipled approach is a losing battle. Someone on this board has a sig (a Tom Jefferson quote) that says "The ground of liberty will be gained in inches." I am way too pessimistic about liberty to believe that. That is how liberty is lost, not how it's gained! It is gained, historically, via migration and revolution, in massive, bloody chunks. It is lost in inches shortly thereafter. I think we can only succeed by selling principled libertarianism; by making people think "It makes more sense the more I think about it, and since they are so principled I trust them not to change once they are in office."

Oh yeah, and don't fear the penguin! Not the Linux penguin, anyway. Linux is good for you...
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: BillG on March 10, 2004, 12:25:42 pm
Quote
If we intended from the start to go toe to toe on stuff we have no chance of winning, we should have picked based on weather.  Then we could all chase futility in Hawaii instead of New Hampshire.  At least we'd be warm.

I can pretty much guarantee there will be no orgies on the NH statehouse lawn in Concord between December 1st and March 1st...

The same can not be said for Hawaii...

The reason why was depicted in a Seinfeld episode when George went swimming in the ocean and then was publically humiliated when seen without his clothes on...

his defense: "shrinkage"

so the macho "flash" depicted on these boards will be tamed by mother nature herself...
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: penguinsscareme on March 10, 2004, 05:34:52 pm
Taco, you're not moving from one police state to another.  I think that's overstating the case just a bit.  I think the state will run better and be more tolerant of porcupines if the prostitution, orgies and drugs were kept indoors, or at least on private property, such as at Ozzfest.  That doesn't make me a jackbooted gestapo.

You speak your position very well, O Furry One.  I appreciate your vision and your idealism.  That's fine to have as a philosophy in the abstract.  But in the real world, there is no such thing as a pure philosophy or a perfect system.  You point out very presciently that liberty is not neat and clean, and there are some consequences that we cannot guarantee against.  But I have offered the best alternative I can think of, which is to allow people to freely engage in whatever sort of behavior they wish (so long as they don't hurt anyone) in privacy.
Why is that not good enough?  Why must we push for the last taboo?  I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to protest publicly, or stand on a soapbox and talk about how wonderful it is to have orgies.  But when we really get whipped into a froth over the extreme logical ends of our ideals, it just makes it sound like we're going to turn the Free State into a place where no one -- not myself, anyway -- would want to live.
No one in Amsterdam complains about not having enough freedom to smoke pot, no one in Vegas complains about not having enough freedom to engage in whatever sexual activity.

My point is that not every porcupine feels the way you do.  I am not even a libertarian.  I have causes of my own that I feel passionately about, and I have started both a liaison page and a local group because of them.  If you feel passionately enough about the right to have public drug use and orgies, then start a liaison.  If not, then please direct your energies in a more productive fashion.  The content on this thread is only divisive.  There is no positive result from this.  I'm not saying you should back away from what you believe in.  But you've also got to acknowledge the reality outside.  The founding fathers at the Constitutional Convention were wise enough to be happy with getting most of what they wanted and did not push and push until they created an impasse.  An impasse is what we seem to have here.  I have gone as far as I can go.
This forum is where people from outside -- people who are not as frothy around the mouth as we can sometimes be -- come to assess our merits.  We represent ourselves much better if we stress the points where we are united than if we stress our differences.
There's a time and place for this debate.  I'm asking you, for what I believe to be the best interest of the fsp, can you wait until after we reach our goal to start stumping for orgies?
Answer honestly if asked; but this has gone way beyond that.  Now we come across not as tacit supporters, but as rabid freaks.
Gotta go.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Reaper on March 10, 2004, 05:50:05 pm
There is no right to not be offended by anything you see or hear in public or on property which you do not own.

I'm not going to advocate making up campaign posters "Support the FSP for huge public orgies!", but if asked neither will I lie and make up non existent rights to placate the morality police amongst us or the population at large.

As Zack once said:

/sacrasm on

"NEWS FLASH!!! LIBERTARIAN HAS UNPOPULAR IDEAS!!!!"
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: thrivetacobell on March 10, 2004, 06:08:29 pm
I hear you Penguinsscareme, yes it was a bit of an overstatement. I deleted the post as having reread it, it was more of an emotional response to the idea of police out on the roads looking for not only drunk drivers but also anyone who might have been smoking pot or using other substances... An escalation of what things currently are, under the awareness of New Hampshire taking the law rather seriously.

Anyhow, I gots no argument with you in regards of individuals choosing to consume such things to show some discretion... Its part of Individual Responsibility.

And to agree with you again (I'm not kissing up, I swear!), the forum is not the place to espouse extremist views. To each his own, but we have a few problems which display a bit more urgency. Lets put first things first, and make the FSP a success!
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: penguinsscareme on March 10, 2004, 09:29:33 pm
Thanks, Taco, at least I feel like I got across to somebody.
I have seen too many good people who are open and receptive to our ideas turned away because they only agreed with us on 90% of the issues.  If someone is on board for most of the trip but isn't ready or willing to go the last mile where we ask for completely transparent national borders, no professional military, or public orgies and drug use, I say welcome them with open arms.  If it's an issue you feel particularly strongly about, then quietly acknowledge that they are not ready to hear it from you, and let them come to you when the time is right for them.  I have had to learn this myself because of my "extreme" views on international trade.

Honestly, if we the fsp accomplish half of our agenda in our lifetimes, we will have been a success.  If we achieve two thirds, we will have made history.  If we make three quarters, we will have a country stronger and better than we dreamed.  If we dare to dream that we could actually accomplish 90% of what we set out to do, our pictures will be on money someday.  And if we succeed in ninety-five percent of our goals, then maybe, just maybe, whether or not to allow public orgies might become a legitimate issue.  Now that would be a nice problem to have.

Andrew
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: ethanpooley on March 10, 2004, 10:08:22 pm
On the forgoing:

Well I certainly agree with your major points:

1. Not all porcupines think like I do.
2. We had best find and focus on our points of agreement.
3. Full-on libertarianism will, if nothing else, invite more opposition than something less radical.

That said, while a 'limited libertarianism' government would be an improvement on the current one, it doesn't solve the fundamental problem that I want to solve in the Free State. Even if the Free State government leaves me free to do whatever I in fact desire to do, I still won't feel that I have accomplished much (beyond a better life for myself) unless it does so out of principle. In other words, getting a bunch of libertarians in one place so that we are enough of a majority to vote our own freedoms is not enough for me, perhaps not even enough to move for. I am moving primarily from the hope that we can go beyond that, to a government under which I don't have to agree with the majority in order to be free.

As for whether that is realistic or not... I have very little hope for it. I just know that if it were to happen, it would begin with something like the FSP. So here I be.


On "Public Property":

Now this is a truly interesting topic to me. We have been talking about what should be allowed on public property; I'm not sure we didn't jump the gun with that discussion. What is public property? In what sense is it 'public'? What repercussions does that have for activities on such property? Are there different kinds/levels/etc of public property?

I can think of at least two senses of the term, each of which would have a different set of reasonable libertarian repercussions: land owned by no one, and land owned by a community. I'll call the first public property, and the second community property.

Public property would be public in the 'public domain' sense. It isn't owned by anyone, it just happens to be within the borders of a state of the Union. I'm not sure what examples of this there are, but BLM land would be pretty close. I'm sure our governments (state/fed) claim to own this land, at least in this day and age. But ideally they shouldn't be able to own in the same sense that a citizen could, at least not without purchasing it (from whom though?) or improving it in some way. In any case, on such land I would definitely argue that one should be able to do whatever one could do on private property. From an activities perspective, anyway. I'm not trying to draw environmental conclusions here or anything.

Community property, on the other hand, is held in common by a group of people, or by an entity that represents a group of people. It is public in the 'community enjoyment' sense. This is probably how townships view their ownership of city property. On that model I could see myself being convinced that the majority could justly specify 'unacceptable' activities. They are 'part owners', after all. On the other hand, I expect there are arguments to the effect that civil government should do no such thing, and that only a private group of citizens should be allowed to own and regulate land in such a fashion. I don't have an opinion on that yet, because I haven't thought about it in those terms much.

Those were just two examples. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that 'public property' picks out several, distinct types of property, each with its own set of defensible restrictions.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: wes237 on March 10, 2004, 10:25:22 pm
Thank you furball4, You are pretty much spot-on.

The majority will decide what is allowable on community/public property. The individule will do what they want on their own private property.

All this other talk is silly adolescent BS. So many seem to forget that their freedom ends where my nose begins. But they will be reminded when they insist on sticking their personal business in my face and especially in my kid's face. And when they get reminded, they will never forget the lesson.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: penguinsscareme on March 10, 2004, 10:43:57 pm
...


You really are a furball, aren't you?

I guess I refer to community property, and maybe this makes me a communist, I don't know, but I believe that there is a place for that, even in the Free State.

Being free without agreeing with the majority is pretty much possible now.  Short of Stalinism, almost every form of government tolerates independents to one extent or another.  I may or may not have been known on occasion to ride without a helmet.  I may be related to people who may or may not have put additions on their homes without consulting the zoning boards of their respective towns.  I may vote republican or libertarian even though I work within a monolithically democrat organization.  As a little boy, I learned from watching the diametrically different examples given by my older siblings that people who pretty much just mind their own business can get away with a lot.
This is why I'm such fan of jury nullification.  Hell with what the law or the government says we have to do.  If you're on a jury to hear a case of a person who broke a law, say it was a law that is either inherently unjust or grossly misapplied, then you can just refuse to convict, even if the commission of the crime has been proven!  In my opinion, that is the best means by which to judge both the people and the law.  Say a guy gets arrested and tried for public nudity (stipulating that such a law hasn't been abolished yet).  Well, was he ducking into an alley to take a leak because his bladder is overactive, or was he pulling out his wiener to flash a couple twelve-year olds?  The power is in the hands of the jury.  Not the judge, not the prosecutor, but the private citizen.
Check out this link, you might enjoy it.
http://www.geocities.com/chrisforliberty/fija.html
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Morpheus on March 10, 2004, 11:04:24 pm
Quote
And to agree with you again (I'm not kissing up, I swear!), the forum is not the place to espouse extremist views.


Yes, it is. We must know where we all stand, or we will accomplish nothing.

Expressing support for the freedom of people to conduct public orgies is different entirely from suggesting that we campaign on that issue, or other such extreme issues.

I may be a militant.. but I am also a pragmatist.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Morpheus on March 10, 2004, 11:24:38 pm
Quote
Community property, on the other hand, is held in common by a group of people, or by an entity that represents a group of people. It is public in the 'community enjoyment' sense. This is probably how townships view their ownership of city property. On that model I could see myself being convinced that the majority could justly specify 'unacceptable' activities. They are 'part owners', after all. On the other hand, I expect there are arguments to the effect that civil government should do no such thing, and that only a private group of citizens should be allowed to own and regulate land in such a fashion. I don't have an opinion on that yet, because I haven't thought about it in those terms much.

If this comes in a form similiar to that of a Gated Community, then fine. If not, and I have to pay taxes for it.. there is going to be a problem.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: boxcar on March 10, 2004, 11:46:40 pm
Furball summed up the public/private sphere well. I agree with Wes, well put. And Morpheus has a point, though I tend to think the Libertarian Party is not taken seriously by most people because of extreme positions built entirely on philosphy. But at least Morpheus (and I have read many of his other posts elsewhere) keeps the debate lively by offering up some challenging questions.

Statists generally use the extreme positions of the (Big L) Libertarian Party against it. That's what statists do - they use fear to justify laws and regulations. They also use most sheeple's tendencies to want to tell other people what they should be doing while not wanting to be told what to do themselves. I've seen it a hundred times while covering municipal meetings. A township proposes zoning and 300 people show up to stop it. A year later (this is a true example), a methadone clinic moves into the township and 300 people (at least 75 percent of the same people) show up to demand from the government why they weren't informed and what can be done to stop it. In short, sheeple like to fear something different. We, libertarians (small L) are different.

Trimming back the statist mentality that is rampant in these United States will take more than clever slogans and arm-chair philosophy, it will take convincing the sheeple that we are not the enemy.

It's been said that the greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world he didn't exist....and we are the devil, according to the statists.

Trimming back the government is easier when the sheeple don't feel threatened. It's like a big game of poker, so why show all the cards?

I'll be the first to blaze up in a free state, but I'm also aware my actions may not be appropriate in public - legal or not. It's more of a concern for civility and respect than my rights. At home, now that's another matter.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: penguinsscareme on March 11, 2004, 05:57:11 am
Quote
And to agree with you again (I'm not kissing up, I swear!), the forum is not the place to espouse extremist views.


Yes, it is. We must know where we all stand, or we will accomplish nothing.

Expressing support for the freedom of people to conduct public orgies is different entirely from suggesting that we campaign on that issue, or other such extreme issues.

I may be a militant.. but I am also a pragmatist.

That's a big steaming load of crap.  We can accomplish tons without litmus testing each other on the issue of public orgies or drug use.  Of a thousand times greater importance is the right to have these things privately -- again I make reference to Amsterdam and Vegas, two successful models, rather than the last age of the Roman Empire, an unsuccessful model.
Endorsing the issue IS campaigning the issue when we drag it out and flog it mercilessly on the Prospective Members forum.
Again, this is so far from being an issue that it's a fool's argument in the first place.
Now, having said that, I confess that I do not agree with you on the issue of public orgies.  I personally am just not ready to support that.  More importantly, as I have tried to stress, the people of New Hampshire, people we hope will work with us, will not support the issue.
So now can we move on?  You insist that you must know where your brethren stand on such an issue or we can accomplish nothing together.  So now you know.  Now can we get with the business of accomplishing the work of the fsp together?  Is my stodginess such an insurmountable obstacle to our partnership, or do you think maybe we have other, more important areas where we agree and can move forward?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: penguinsscareme on March 11, 2004, 07:44:04 am
We're on the same page, Boxcar.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: atr on March 11, 2004, 10:06:31 am
A person's decision to do stupid things like drugs is his own business until he hurts someone else.  I'll go a step further and say until he endangers someone else.  And where exactly do we draw that line?  That's one of those things we have to leave to discretion.  It's too fuzzy to nail down.  I'm not waffling, either, so don't get p.o.'ed.  Probable cause is a fuzzy line, the founders made it that way on purpose.  It's okay to leave some things to common sense and discretion.  We don't have to nail down every minute detail.
Public orgies are just one of those things that is definitely over the line, even though the line is fuzzy.  It's not healthy for me to see an orgy.  It's not healthy for my daughter to see an orgy.  If nothing else, it's disturbing the peace!
I expect to be able to conduct my public business without having to dodge orgies or people dealing and shooting heroin.  If there's a well-soundproofed private bordello or drug den between me and my destination, I couldn't care less.  I draw the line around there somewhere.

See, this is what makes me nervous.  Sometimes it starts to sound like we're not only decriminalizing vice, but facilitating it.
Say what you want, but bear in mind that there are always potential members reading.  You represent us all when you post on this forum.  You can be right, but better to be right and smart than right and stupid.

I tried to bite my tongue, but it looks like this thread is becoming a magnet for FSP members who do not intend to honor the statement of intent. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property.

Sex or nudity on public property in no way infringes on your rights to life, liberty, or property. If we use the government's monopoly on force to impose our own views of social norms on other people, we cannot in fairness expect them not to use the government to impose their views on us.

Quote
But I have offered the best alternative I can think of, which is to allow people to freely engage in whatever sort of behavior they wish (so long as they don't hurt anyone) in privacy.
Why is that not good enough?  Why must we push for the last taboo?  I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to protest publicly, or stand on a soapbox and talk about how wonderful it is to have orgies.
This sums up the problem nicely--everyone wants to decide what other people should and shouldn't be allowed to do. That is the definition of authoritarianism, whether it's on public or private property.

Quote
We can accomplish tons without litmus testing each other on the issue of public orgies or drug use.  Of a thousand times greater importance is the right to have these things privately . . .
How about free political speech? Would you say it's way more important to have this right in private than in public? Who's going to be the master arbiter of what rights we should have in private and what we should have in public?

wes237:
Quote
All this other talk is silly adolescent BS. So many seem to forget that their freedom ends where my nose begins. But they will be reminded when they insist on sticking their personal business in my face and especially in my kid's face. And when they get reminded, they will never forget the lesson.
Next time you're on a sidewalk with your kid, and someone says a bad word, or a woman takes her shirt off, are you saying you're going to attack them? It's bad enough to have the government enforce a code of social conduct, let alone have some people attack other people who do offensive things.


This thread was one of the first big libertarian discussions I got into after discovering the FSP. It was a theoretical discussion. As has been repeated many times, supporting someone's right to do something is not an endorsement of his or her behavior. This is very similar to Bastiat's observation in "A Confusion of Terms" from The Law:

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.


The contrary argument comes from our enemies, who believe that if the government allows something, that's the same as the government endorsing it. Yet at the same time, they're happy to have the government endorse just about anything, as long as they agree with it. They're gleeful to get the government to take money by force from other people and use it for their own ends (e.g. paying the police to arrest naked people).

You couldn't let this discussion drop as merely a theoretical discussion--not an endorsement of public sex acts, and not a policy plan for New Hampshire. You call us stupid for having a principled view of liberty, and for acknowledging it with honesty. You insist that you should be able to impose your view of decency on other people. Get a grip on yourself. We are not pursuing the end of civilization. We are pursuing liberty.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Reaper on March 11, 2004, 10:35:15 am
All this other talk is silly adolescent BS. So many seem to forget that their freedom ends where my nose begins. But they will be reminded when they insist on sticking their personal business in my face and especially in my kid's face. And when they get reminded, they will never forget the lesson.

Please explain to me specifically how a person being naked on public property in anyway violates your person, property or liberty, other than "I just don't like it".
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: SteveA on March 11, 2004, 11:45:20 am
Though I don't preach any benefits to using drugs, our current legal definition of what a dangerous drug is, is far from beneficial.  Look at Rush Limbaugh, hooked on LEGAL drugs (though using them illegally).  My guess is that legal drugs cause more harm to people than illegal ones but some people need these medications, so what do you do?  Outlaw all drugs that could possibly be harmful and get rid of medicinal science altogether (people would just go elsewhere for their medication anyway and we'd have to hire tons of police officers to chase them down - not very productive all around).

The underlying conflict in using government to use force in doing virtually anything is that others can claim the same right.  The only non-conflicting use of government is to stop people from making forceful claims over overs (and in reality we wouldn't need any government at all if people respected each others right to live their life as they desired in their "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" ... sounds familiar huh?  Notice it says "pursuit".  We can't guarantee anyone will be successful in this pursuit).  We were founded in a very libertarian attitude of small government and independent states and have gone very far off course.

Some people may decide to use drugs that we would consider dangerous and have negative (or positive) experiences.  We have the freedom of association and speech in America.  We can choose not to associate with people who we feel are harmful to us and the right to tell them so but not the right to pick up a gun and threaten them if they are merely exercising the same rights we expect for ourselves.  Allowing people differing rights, depending on our whim, is where the conflict starts.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: penguinsscareme on March 11, 2004, 03:09:34 pm
ATR, I stand by what I said.
I intend to honor my statement of intent first of all by working to recruit another 14,000 members to the project.  Then I intend to work to decentralize government power to the point where the township actually has some legitimacy again.  But I do not intend to further either of those goals by stamping my feet and pounding my fist and insisting that we legalize public drug use and sex.
Theoretical discussions are nothing but hot air.  Instead of making yourself useless by hurling out unattainable absolutes, why don't you tell me what I can do, or what you're going to do, to get the other 14,000 porcupines into the project.
I think it's Doug Hillman whose signature says we don't need philosophers, we need activists.  That's what I'm trying to point out.  I am not looking at this from a philosophical standpoint, I'm looking at it from an activism standpoint.
Your principles are admirable.  But this isn't about your principles.  I have principles of my own that I'm sure you wouldn't agree with.  You can have your principles, okay?  But let me have mine, as well.  Someday -- I think pretty soon -- we're going to have 20,000 members, and they're all going to have their own principles.  Do we want 20,000 people who all want to work toward more individual freedom and less government, or do we want 20,000 people who all agree on everything?  Again, one of these things is attainable, and the other is not.
I find it ironic that you tell me to get a grip on myself.  I think I have a pretty firm grasp of the situation, thanks.  I think it is you who are out of touch.  Public orgies and drug use are so far down the list of things we need to worry about that they are not worth serious discussion, let alone a war of ideals.
If you are going to draw a line in the sand over this stupidity, then you are going to find it impossible to ever work with people in meaningful way.  Your position is radical and extreme, and I think radical extremism -- or the perception of it -- is exactly why the libertarian cause has never gained wide acceptance.
I've said it and said it and said it again.  You just can't win this.
You should realize that there are those within the project -- people in positions of leadership, no less! -- who are willing to work with New Hampshire Republicans(!) who agree with us on many of our most important issues.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=45;action=display;threadid=5164
They don't agree with us on everything, but WE'RE NOT ASKING THEM TO.  We're taking what we can get and moving forward.
You can wallow in your philosophic ideals that are never going to actually materialize, or you can accept thatwe agree more than we disagree, and we can move forward together.
If all you want to do is divide, that's pretty easy.  It takes a little something more to unite.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: wes237 on March 12, 2004, 10:04:27 pm
Reaper...I think a kid should be allowed to be a kid as long as they can. I don't think their kid innocence should be spoiled by a nude body in public. (Just as I don't like the government robbing them of their innocence by teaching them sex education in the second grade of public schools) I have nothing against nudity...don't care what people do. But they don't have the right to shove their way in other people's face. Just as I don't want to have to try to explain to a ten year old why the guy at the park where we throw the football is sticking a needle in their arm, or some other guy has his pants unzipped with his his boyfriend on their knees in front of him. Just because it is legal does not mean you have the right to display it to another.

Reaper...after all this time reading your posts (past year and a half), I am surprised you would even ask the question. You always struck me as a 'common decency/common sense' kind of guy.

I am becoming very unhappy with lack of maturity this forum has come too since the vote was taken last fall.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: rdeacon on March 13, 2004, 03:03:03 pm
What bothers me is that so many people are willing to shoot this movement in the foot by insisting on something as stupid and trivial as being able to walk naked in public.

Talk all you want about life, liberty, and property, but you are not being unreasonably oppressed by your inability to walk naked down main street (especially in New Hampshire in March).

Insisting on packaging that in with reasonable requests such as changing our drug policy, ending our victim disarmament crusade, and cutting taxes undermines our movement and kicks otherwise willing supporters out of our already tiny tent.  We can't afford to alienate.

Please explain to me specifically how a person being naked on public property in anyway violates your person, property or liberty, other than "I just don't like it".
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: wes237 on March 13, 2004, 03:10:33 pm
Pushing your personal lifestyle in the face of others, publically, make you nothing more than a common statist. Isn't that why we want the Free State....to get away from others forcing their issues onto other individules?
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: thrivetacobell on March 13, 2004, 03:23:50 pm
Yep.

If everyone were mature enough to show a little self respect and individual responsibility then everyone could get along just fine.

Joining the FSP, for me, is a matter of gaining the opportunity to achieve a little individual responsibility. I hope a lot.

 If I wanted to escape from such it would be far more lucrative for me to stay where I am.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: atr on March 13, 2004, 03:33:43 pm
Insisting on packaging that in with reasonable requests such as changing our drug policy, ending our victim disarmament crusade, and cutting taxes undermines our movement and kicks otherwise willing supporters out of our already tiny tent.  We can't afford to alienate.

I believe our tent is made smaller when we tell people what aspects of liberty are not acceptable for FSP members to care about and/or pursue. The beauty of the FSP, which is really the beauty of libertarianism, is that it allows different people with different values and priorities to find common ground in a general pursuit of increased liberty. Some of us care most about gun rights, some of us care most about taxes, some of us care most about drugs--I'm sure there are dozens of different priorities represented in the FSP. Belittling or condemning the aspects of liberty valued by other members is the alienation we cannot afford. Instead we should accept that other members may care more or less about certain aspects of liberty than we do, and we should be thankful that we are allies in pursuit of maximizing liberty in general.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: atr on March 13, 2004, 03:40:06 pm
Pushing your personal lifestyle in the face of others, publically, make you nothing more than a common statist. Isn't that why we want the Free State....to get away from others forcing their issues onto other individules?

Thank you for asking this question, which I believe is a really important one to discuss. However, I believe it would best be discussed in the General Libertarian Discussion section of the message board, so I hope that you will post it there, or that a moderator will move this post and yours into that section.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: wes237 on March 13, 2004, 03:44:43 pm
When I was a teenager in the 60's...there was an area of the local lake called "hippy hollow" . (I imagine every community had such an area) If you went there you knew to expect peaceful people floating / sitting about nude and smoking pot/hash/etc. But those same folks who frequented the area (me included) , when making a beer / rolling paper run, did not go to the store without clothes or  with a joint in our mouth. It was called common decency and common respect. It did not require a law...and it did not require  discussion.

ATR...I'm responding to Reaper. If you want it moved, them move it.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Reaper on March 13, 2004, 05:51:55 pm
Reaper...I think a kid should be allowed to be a kid as long as they can. I don't think their kid innocence should be spoiled by a nude body in public.

So, what is it about the human body that is so evil the mere sight of it unclothed makes them suddenly guilty?

(Just as I don't like the government robbing them of their innocence by teaching them sex education in the second grade of public schools)

No argument from me that public schools need to go.  I'm still looking for a concrete answer as to how the mere sight of a human body or knowledge about it makes one guilty?  And of what?

I have nothing against nudity...don't care what people do.

Nor do I.  I don't practice it much myself but I certainly don't think it should be a crime.

But they don't have the right to shove their way in other people's face.

Again, I'd ask specifically how the mere presence of a naked human body violates your right to life, liberty or property?  If someone wears a huge cross costume, or star of david or crescent moon are they "shoving it in your face" and should they be arrested?

Just as I don't want to have to try to explain to a ten year old why the guy at the park where we throw the football is sticking a needle in their arm, or some other guy has his pants unzipped with his his boyfriend on their knees in front of him. Just because it is legal does not mean you have the right to display it to another.

So then because you wish to maintain your child in a state of ignorance it justifies the initiation of force and use of police and guns against other persons?  Shouldn't that be your responsibility as a parent and not somehow bestow upon you the right to draft at gun point all free persons to keep you child ignorant of such things?

Reaper...after all this time reading your posts (past year and a half), I am surprised you would even ask the question. You always struck me as a 'common decency/common sense' kind of guy.

As I've said many times just because I don't believe something should be a crime does not mean I participate in such or approve of it.  I just don't think my status as a parent gives me "extra rights" or "privilidges" to initiate force against others harming no person or just themselves.

I get that you personally think such things would be somehow harmful to your child, but I've yet to see anything beyond "I find it offensive" or "I don't like it" or "It's against my personal morality".  None of those things are IMO sufficient cause for pointing guns at people and/or imprisoning them.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Reaper on March 13, 2004, 05:55:55 pm
What bothers me is that so many people are willing to shoot this movement in the foot by insisting on something as stupid and trivial as being able to walk naked in public.

Talk all you want about life, liberty, and property, but you are not being unreasonably oppressed by your inability to walk naked down main street (especially in New Hampshire in March).

Insisting on packaging that in with reasonable requests such as changing our drug policy, ending our victim disarmament crusade, and cutting taxes undermines our movement and kicks otherwise willing supporters out of our already tiny tent.  We can't afford to alienate.

Please explain to me specifically how a person being naked on public property in anyway violates your person, property or liberty, other than "I just don't like it".

I do note however that you completely failed to answer the question.  Your response is merely ad hominem and does nothing for the discussion.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Reaper on March 13, 2004, 05:57:51 pm
Pushing your personal lifestyle in the face of others, publically, make you nothing more than a common statist. Isn't that why we want the Free State....to get away from others forcing their issues onto other individules?

So your idea of "freedom" is that you are free to force others at gunpoint to act as you feel is correct according to your own "personal morality"?  Perhaps you should reevaluate who is being statist.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: atr on March 13, 2004, 05:59:02 pm
ATR...I'm responding to Reaper. If you want it moved, them move it.
I've restarted the discussion here:
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=6167
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Reaper on March 13, 2004, 05:59:08 pm
Yep.

If everyone were mature enough to show a little self respect and individual responsibility then everyone could get along just fine.

TRANSLATION:  "If everyone acted as I think is respectful and appropriate we could all get along just fine."
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: thrivetacobell on March 13, 2004, 07:32:03 pm
Actually, I couldn't give two shits one way or the other. I'm thinking merely of the fact that if I had children (which is not my plan in life) and a family, or a little sister,  I would hope people had the courtesy to show them a little respect for where they are at in life and not act like a moron for the sake of acting like a moron.

Look at it this way-

We exist, and insomuch are we subject to the fact of that little thing called reality. No matter where we are to move, we are still a part of society, with all the families and children and elderly found therein.

How many FSP members have families? If they worry for their children, should we revole their membership? They want exactly what we want- which I hope is not the demise of basic deceny.

Do you think our politics will have half a chance if we disregard this? C'mon, man, have some sense.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: rdeacon on March 14, 2004, 11:45:15 am
I believe our tent is made smaller when we tell people what aspects of liberty are not acceptable for FSP members to care about and/or pursue.The beauty of the FSP, which is really the beauty of libertarianism, is that it allows different people with different values and priorities to find common ground in a general pursuit of increased liberty. Some of us care most about gun rights, some of us care most about taxes, some of us care most about drugs--I'm sure there are dozens of different priorities represented in the FSP.
It's not that such pursuits are not "acceptable", but rather that such pursuits are not and should not be priorities.  Right now American culture is one that thinks on a societal scale.  We need to push the issues from a societal, not individual angle.  The "war on nudity" does nothing to hurt society.  There are no naked ghettos or nudity bandits.  I talk about pushing drug reform not because I think I should have the right to do drugs, that won't fly with the electorate.  I push drug reform because I have evidence that the war on drugs creates crime, causes medical harm, and increases our drug problem.  I push gun reform not because I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but because victim disarmament puts people in danger.  These are the angles that we need to emphesize if we are to gain influence - there is no such argument to be made for public nudity.

One day, down the road, when we actually have made an effect on the way people think about their role in society, we will be in a position to say "I should have the right to do something just because it does not harm your life, liberty, and property", but it's simply too early to say that.  For every person we recruit through that logic, we alienate a hundred people who simply are not accustomed to thinking like that but are open to libertarian ideas as solutions to their problems.

Nudity, for all that it is natural and should not be persecuted, creates no societal problem through its prohibition.  And, 99% of the population would probably not want their child exposed to nudity on public streets.  Do I agree with their logic?  No.  But when you're talking about 99% of the population, the soundness of their logic doesn't matter.  Public nudity is a third rail issue, don't set yourself up to get fried.  Considering our plans to pursue public office, I hope that our potential candidates fully understand the need for discretion and a moderate agenda.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Terry 1956 on March 17, 2004, 12:38:09 pm
I believe our tent is made smaller when we tell people what aspects of liberty are not acceptable for FSP members to care about and/or pursue.The beauty of the FSP, which is really the beauty of libertarianism, is that it allows different people with different values and priorities to find common ground in a general pursuit of increased liberty. Some of us care most about gun rights, some of us care most about taxes, some of us care most about drugs--I'm sure there are dozens of different priorities represented in the FSP.
It's not that such pursuits are not "acceptable", but rather that such pursuits are not and should not be priorities.  Right now American culture is one that thinks on a societal scale.  We need to push the issues from a societal, not individual angle.  The "war on nudity" does nothing to hurt society.  There are no naked ghettos or nudity bandits.  I talk about pushing drug reform not because I think I should have the right to do drugs, that won't fly with the electorate.  I push drug reform because I have evidence that the war on drugs creates crime, causes medical harm, and increases our drug problem.  I push gun reform not because I believe in the 2nd Amendment, but because victim disarmament puts people in danger.  These are the angles that we need to emphesize if we are to gain influence - there is no such argument to be made for public nudity.

One day, down the road, when we actually have made an effect on the way people think about their role in society, we will be in a position to say "I should have the right to do something just because it does not harm your life, liberty, and property", but it's simply too early to say that.  For every person we recruit through that logic, we alienate a hundred people who simply are not accustomed to thinking like that but are open to libertarian ideas as solutions to their problems.

Nudity, for all that it is natural and should not be persecuted, creates no societal problem through its prohibition.  And, 99% of the population would probably not want their child exposed to nudity on public streets.  Do I agree with their logic?  No.  But when you're talking about 99% of the population, the soundness of their logic doesn't matter.  Public nudity is a third rail issue, don't set yourself up to get fried.  Considering our plans to pursue public office, I hope that our potential candidates fully understand the need for discretion and a moderate agenda.
Actually people think on an individual and family scale with an out look on issues  and community that affects their lives, show them how society and the state aren't the same and how much the state is actually costing them. Don't pander to state falsehoods, its a loser.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: rdeacon on March 17, 2004, 07:57:17 pm
Actually people think on an individual and family scale with an out look on issues  and community that affects their lives, show them how society and the state aren't the same and how much the state is actually costing them. Don't pander to state falsehoods, its a loser.
Of course people think on an individual and family scale when they think of issues, but they consider themselves to be part of a society, the existance of which they subconsciously value very greatly. We've all heard the old adage that change is feared by the masses, well it is quite true.  It takes a rare set of circumstances for a population to rebel against an oppressive regime, especially when the oppression is not overt and violent.  America simply does not fit into this mold, otherwise we'd have 99% voter turnouts and much more protest.

There is a proven political malaise in this country, and that malaise intellectually manifests itself in the form of subconscious respect for the status quo - a fear of change.  In order to break the average person of this, we cannot yell at them about how the status quo isn't supposed to exist (or how its morally wrong for the status quo to exist), especially when our pop culture encourages conformity and brands anybody with a radical opinion as a freak or an outsider.

Right now our status quo is an entitlement complex.  Americans need to hear from politicians how those politicians will solve their problems.  Thats why they turn off libertarianism when libertarianism says "you don't have a right social security/medicare/welfare/minimum wage/police/fire/emergency services".  What they want to hear from libertarians is "how can I solve your problems?"  Gary Nolan speaks a lot about this approach, but unfortunately he still falls back on extremist policy which undercuts his message.  
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Terry 1956 on March 22, 2004, 04:58:37 pm
Actually people think on an individual and family scale with an out look on issues  and community that affects their lives, show them how society and the state aren't the same and how much the state is actually costing them. Don't pander to state falsehoods, its a loser.
Of course people think on an individual and family scale when they think of issues, but they consider themselves to be part of a society, the existance of which they subconsciously value very greatly. We've all heard the old adage that change is feared by the masses, well it is quite true.  It takes a rare set of circumstances for a population to rebel against an oppressive regime, especially when the oppression is not overt and violent.  America simply does not fit into this mold, otherwise we'd have 99% voter turnouts and much more protest.

There is a proven political malaise in this country, and that malaise intellectually manifests itself in the form of subconscious respect for the status quo - a fear of change.  In order to break the average person of this, we cannot yell at them about how the status quo isn't supposed to exist (or how its morally wrong for the status quo to exist), especially when our pop culture encourages conformity and brands anybody with a radical opinion as a freak or an outsider.

Right now our status quo is an entitlement complex.  Americans need to hear from politicians how those politicians will solve their problems.  Thats why they turn off libertarianism when libertarianism says "you don't have a right social security/medicare/welfare/minimum wage/police/fire/emergency services".  What they want to hear from libertarians is "how can I solve your problems?"  Gary Nolan speaks a lot about this approach, but unfortunately he still falls back on extremist policy which undercuts his message.  
                                                                               
      I agree with you they don't offer enough solutions, people don't want to here the standard " We want stop someone from helping anyone and talking about charity just puts people in mind of  Good Will and soup kitchens. On the other hand those solutions should not include saving the federal social security and medicare program or  mandated contributions to a  private retirement fund or revenue neutral tax ideas. Cut taxes and spending a lot, show people how they can get better  less costly service by moving social security, health care subsidies and other saftey nets away from the federal and state governments towards voluntary associations, community, family, private firms and private institutions Social programs  are 70% of government spending and very ineffective at a federal and state level. Remember also there are a variety of ideas that can work and we have thousands of labortories in the US, (you have more than a thousand in NH) don't limit it to one or even 50.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: Terry 1956 on March 22, 2004, 05:04:26 pm
Actually people think on an individual and family scale with an out look on issues  and community that affects their lives, show them how society and the state aren't the same and how much the state is actually costing them. Don't pander to state falsehoods, its a loser.
Of course people think on an individual and family scale when they think of issues, but they consider themselves to be part of a society, the existance of which they subconsciously value very greatly. We've all heard the old adage that change is feared by the masses, well it is quite true.  It takes a rare set of circumstances for a population to rebel against an oppressive regime, especially when the oppression is not overt and violent.  America simply does not fit into this mold, otherwise we'd have 99% voter turnouts and much more protest.

There is a proven political malaise in this country, and that malaise intellectually manifests itself in the form of subconscious respect for the status quo - a fear of change.  In order to break the average person of this, we cannot yell at them about how the status quo isn't supposed to exist (or how its morally wrong for the status quo to exist), especially when our pop culture encourages conformity and brands anybody with a radical opinion as a freak or an outsider.

Right now our status quo is an entitlement complex.  Americans need to hear from politicians how those politicians will solve their problems.  Thats why they turn off libertarianism when libertarianism says "you don't have a right social security/medicare/welfare/minimum wage/police/fire/emergency services".  What they want to hear from libertarians is "how can I solve your problems?"  Gary Nolan speaks a lot about this approach, but unfortunately he still falls back on extremist policy which undercuts his message.  
                                                                             
 Actually Nolan doesn't go far enough but there is a limit to what a presidential candidate can do any way, if it runs up to a million dollars or more its probally a waste of money unless he can make a lot of good lasting impressions.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: rdeacon on March 22, 2004, 07:53:46 pm
I agree with you they don't offer enough solutions, people don't want to here the standard " We want stop someone from helping anyone and talking about charity just puts people in mind of  Good Will and soup kitchens. On the other hand those solutions should not include saving the federal social security and medicare program or  mandated contributions to a  private retirement fund or revenue neutral tax ideas. Cut taxes and spending a lot, show people how they can get better  less costly service by moving social security, health care subsidies and other saftey nets away from the federal and state governments towards voluntary associations, community, family, private firms and private institutions Social programs  are 70% of government spending and very ineffective at a federal and state level. Remember also there are a variety of ideas that can work and we have thousands of labortories in the US, (you have more than a thousand in NH) don't limit it to one or even 50.
It's not as easy as you make it sound.  You can't cut taxes until AFTER you cut spending.  Fail at this and you run a deficit.  You can't remove safeguards until after you flatten the private sector power structure.  Fail at this and we'll end up in a Robocop-style corporate tyranny.  We can't just come out and say "government doesn't work", because Joe Voter won't believe us.  We can throw a ton of rhetoric at him and it won't matter, because for all the evidence that we produce, the authoritarians have their own.  What matters is marketing, branding, advertising, and appearance.  Lets face it, the American political market has no soul.  We have to stop pretending that people will welcome liberty with open arms.  It's going to be a painful battle - as Thomas Jefferson said "the ground of liberty will be gained in inches".
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: rdeacon on March 22, 2004, 07:55:37 pm
Actually Nolan doesn't go far enough but there is a limit to what a presidential candidate can do any way, if it runs up to a million dollars or more its probally a waste of money unless he can make a lot of good lasting impressions.
I doubt he'll make a lasting impression, because he doesn't resonate with the average citizen.  People are frightened by radical change.  I've posted elsewhere on these boards about our collective fear of sudden change.
Title: Re:Drugs in the FSP
Post by: retr0spectiv on July 25, 2005, 06:55:45 am
The whole "I don't want my kids seeing that!" argument is a line of crap.

YOU are responsible for YOUR children, not your neighbors, not the government and not anyone else.

You don't want your kids seeing some certain act or words or whatever, than YOU need to take steps to see to it they don't.  Know where you are taking them, who owns the property and what the rules are of the property owners.

Your decision to procreate does not in any way restrict the rights of your neighbors. 

here here!  :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D