Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Drugs in the FSP  (Read 45760 times)

kater

  • the greater
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 994
  • NH Resident
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #45 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.  
Logged
It's time for President Paul.
www.ronpaulhq.com

The Plano Texan

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #46 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"?
Logged

kater

  • the greater
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 994
  • NH Resident
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #47 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.
Logged
It's time for President Paul.
www.ronpaulhq.com

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #48 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.

« Last Edit: October 09, 2003, 06:44:02 am by Zack Bass »
Logged

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #49 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.

Logged

kater

  • the greater
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 994
  • NH Resident
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #50 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.
Logged
It's time for President Paul.
www.ronpaulhq.com

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #51 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.

« Last Edit: October 09, 2003, 08:20:39 am by Zack Bass »
Logged

kater

  • the greater
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 994
  • NH Resident
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #52 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?
Logged
It's time for President Paul.
www.ronpaulhq.com

Jilks

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
    • Quanta Plus
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #53 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.
Logged

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #54 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".

Logged

Reaper

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
  • Atheism cures religious terrorism!
    • The Reaper's Den
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #55 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.  
« Last Edit: October 09, 2003, 10:31:24 am by Reaper »
Logged
Reaper
Proud member of the FSP's lunatic fringe!

"If we turn from battle because there is little hope of victory, where then would valor be?  Let it ever be the goal that stirs us, not the odds."

kater

  • the greater
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 994
  • NH Resident
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #56 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?
Logged
It's time for President Paul.
www.ronpaulhq.com

jeanius

  • Guest
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #57 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
Logged

The Plano Texan

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #58 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?
Logged

The Plano Texan

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #59 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 13   Go Up