Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Drugs in the FSP  (Read 45506 times)

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #15 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.

Logged

lloydbob1

  • Guest
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #16 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.
Logged

Aleuicius

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #17 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 ....  
Logged

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #18 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.
Logged

kater

  • the greater
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 994
  • NH Resident
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #19 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.
Logged
It's time for President Paul.
www.ronpaulhq.com

atr

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 858
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #20 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?
Logged

The Plano Texan

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #21 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?
Logged

kater

  • the greater
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 994
  • NH Resident
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #22 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?
Logged
It's time for President Paul.
www.ronpaulhq.com

RhythmStar

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1886
  • Imagine there's no Heaven.
    • RhythmStar Records
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #23 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
Logged
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House

Justin

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 686
  • So... these are going to be my neighbors?!
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #24 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*
« Last Edit: October 08, 2003, 12:39:10 pm by Justin »
Logged
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. - Diderot

The Plano Texan

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #25 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.
Logged

atr

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 858
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #26 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.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2003, 01:15:53 pm by atr »
Logged

Dalamar49

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 509
  • I smoked out the sheriff and his deputy! : )
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #27 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.


Logged
Get up, stand up, stand up for your right. Don't give up the fight.

kater

  • the greater
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 994
  • NH Resident
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #28 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.
Logged
It's time for President Paul.
www.ronpaulhq.com

The Plano Texan

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #29 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 13   Go Up