True or false: any personal freedom that brings harm to society in general should...

[NYcarbineer]

The individual has no obligation to society.

That is nonsense. Your entire life is built upon the shoulders of those who came before you. The words you type here are products of your society. The machine you type them on are a product of your society. Without society you are almost certainly dead. You are part of it, take advantage of it, suck off its teat, and it is not free.

The nonsense here is that you are giving society credit for the work of individuals.

The Preamble to our Constitution is all about 'us' as a society.

We, the People...a perfect Union...the common defense...the general welfare...

all terminology associated with the collective.

 

[Billy000]

Sometimes it is difficult for people to admit/see that certain personal freedoms cause societal harm. Legalizing all drugs for instance, would be very detrimental to society.

Using force against people causes more harm to society. The drug addict causes harm to himself end becomes a burden on his family, but when his habit becomes illegal he resorts to stealing and robbing thereby harming hundreds of people. When he in incarcerated, he becomes a burden on the taxpayers.

The idea that the government can solve social problems by making them illegal is fallacious.

Not all drugs are created equal. Even if it was legal, people would still max out their credit cards to get it. Once they did that, they would steal. The decision to steal would just be delayed.

 

[Billy000]

Classic fearmonger argument, that totally ignores history and reality.

Meth would be practically wiped out overnight and strong concentrations of cocaine would be the exception rather than the norm....The analog would be beer and wine sales, which far outstrip those of hard liquor and occupy far and away more shelf space than distilled spirits.

Fact is that most people just want to tie a little buzz on, rather than get inebriated.

There would always be a demand for meth.

Get a little buzz on? People shoot for a buzz because of how difficult it is in general to afford hard drugs. For a lot of people the initial intention to experiment would easily turn into a total addiction.

Are you unaware of prohibition and the crime syndicates that it spawned. Do we have that today? No, not with alcohol. Yes, with drugs. Treat drugs like alcohol and you'll get the same results.

No way. Like I said, not al drugs are created equal. Meth is far more addicting than alcohol is. Saving on crime is not a good enough argument.

 

[Billy000]

...be outlawed.

True.

Gotta love an honest liberal.

Comes right out in the open and says he's against freedom.

And probably half the Constitution.

Gotta love an honest conservative.

Comes right out and says he sees any political ideology in black and white terms.

 

[bripat9643]

Sometimes it is difficult for people to admit/see that certain personal freedoms cause societal harm. Legalizing all drugs for instance, would be very detrimental to society.

Using force against people causes more harm to society. The drug addict causes harm to himself end becomes a burden on his family, but when his habit becomes illegal he resorts to stealing and robbing thereby harming hundreds of people. When he in incarcerated, he becomes a burden on the taxpayers.

The idea that the government can solve social problems by making them illegal is fallacious.

Not all drugs are created equal. Even if it was legal, people would still max out their credit cards to get it. Once they did that, they would steal. The decision to steal would just be delayed.

If cocaine was legal an amount that now costs $100 would then cost $2.00, so no one would be maxing out their credit cards. Furthermore, their drugs wouldn't be laced with adulterants, many of which are poisonous. anyway you look at it, the negative impact of legal drugs are less than the negative impacts of illegal drugs.

 

[Billy000]

Using force against people causes more harm to society. The drug addict causes harm to himself end becomes a burden on his family, but when his habit becomes illegal he resorts to stealing and robbing thereby harming hundreds of people. When he in incarcerated, he becomes a burden on the taxpayers.

The idea that the government can solve social problems by making them illegal is fallacious.

Not all drugs are created equal. Even if it was legal, people would still max out their credit cards to get it. Once they did that, they would steal. The decision to steal would just be delayed.

If cocaine was legal an amount that now costs $100 would then cost $2.00, so no one would be maxing out their credit cards. Furthermore, their drugs wouldn't be laced with adulterants, many of which are poisonous. anyway you look at it, the negative impact of legal drugs are less than the negative impacts of illegal drugs.

$2.00? Based on what logic? If an addicting substance was in high demand, the cost would still be ridiculous. Yeah adulterants that would make it more addicting.

 

[pix]

id hate to live in america.
those poor women who were held prisoners for 10 years....i wonder when some prick is gonna come along and shoot them.
freedom and gun ownership, and the american constitution and the shackles of the poorly thought out "second amendment".
*hint; problem with your gun laws america? theres a hint in the term "second amendment." have you found it yet? its the word "amendment"
freud said "America is the most grandiose experiment the world has seen, but, I am afraid, it is not going to be a success."
time has proven freud was right.

 

[pix]

Answer obviously false.
1) Who decides when/if "harm" is being done?
2) America is a country based on individual rights. We are not a country based on collectivism and "the good of society" - thank God our forefathers were wise enough to know that there are no incorruptible angels flying around that can fairly judge what is right or wrong for everyone.

oh ffs! THEY THEMSELVES thought they were incorruptable angels because they made your "consitiution" the be all and end all of any argument.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is nonsense. Your entire life is built upon the shoulders of those who came before you. The words you type here are products of your society. The machine you type them on are a product of your society. Without society you are almost certainly dead. You are part of it, take advantage of it, suck off its teat, and it is not free.

The nonsense here is that you are giving society credit for the work of individuals.

We are a social animal by nature. The natural basic social unit of human beings is not the individual, rarely even is it the single family. It is the group.

Most of the inventors in history have been INTJs, which makes your argument that we, whoever you think we is, are social even more absurd.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is nonsense. Your entire life is built upon the shoulders of those who came before you. The words you type here are products of your society. The machine you type them on are a product of your society. Without society you are almost certainly dead. You are part of it, take advantage of it, suck off its teat, and it is not free.

The nonsense here is that you are giving society credit for the work of individuals.

The Preamble to our Constitution is all about 'us' as a society.

We, the People...a perfect Union...the common defense...the general welfare...

all terminology associated with the collective.

We who? I did not have any part in writing the Constitution, and you oppose the core principles that caused the people who actually debated the need for it to go to war against England.

 

[pix]

The nonsense here is that you are giving society credit for the work of individuals.

We are a social animal by nature. The natural basic social unit of human beings is not the individual, rarely even is it the single family. It is the group.

Most of the inventors in history have been INTJs, which makes your argument that we, whoever you think we is, are social even more absurd.

well to be accurate, the Myers-Briggs "personality test" is held in as much esteem as an astrological chart in psych., circles, but the lay ppl love it and put much store in it, for some reason.
and those who may show up as an intj or an entj or any other of the 16 combinations will more often than not be in an entirely different "myers/briggs pigeon hole" under different circumstances, on a different day.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the Rule of Law by a We the People constitutional republic with minority rights is far superior to any libertarian or anarchist status.

 

[pix]

the Rule of Law by a We the People constitutional republic with minority rights is far superior to any libertarian or anarchist status.

then how come you all shoot each other all the time?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The government can't fine you. The homeowner voluntarily enters into an association where they agree in advance what color to paint their house. This has nothing to do with the government. If you don't like it, don't buy your house there.

Well then the people in Europe can move if they don't like the seed laws.

Apply same to state abortion law.

The EU isn’t a republic, the United States is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Non sequitur, pix: try again.

And the fact is that in the natural state anyone could shoot anyone.

That is the problem of the libertarian society of equals: we'd end up with warriors, shield maidens, and everyone else would be slaves.

In that world, though, I would be the supreme leader.

 

[pix]

Non sequitur, pix: try again.

And the fact is that in the natural state anyone could shoot anyone.

That is the problem of the libertarian society of equals: we'd end up with warriors, shield maidens, and everyone else would be slaves.

In that world, though, I would be the supreme leader.

pfft. non sequiteur indeed.
and the fact is, thank god we are civilised and dont have to live in the "natural state"
so moot point starkey, try again.
australia is a society of equals, and we dont have warriors or shield ppl, or slaves.
aus., unlike america, has evolved beyond that kind of selfishness

i also note that there is an american expression of insult, namely, being "owned"
only an american could have come up with that as an insult.
you put so much store into owning something, and you even call your society "consumers"
we had a big discussion about this with the kids, explaining the implications of language and americas efforts to dominate the world, if only culturally . we dont want our kids becoming americanised. this would be a bad outcome for our society. your constitution is all wrong if its all like the bit about the guns.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We live as well as we do, pix, because we don't live in a world by your rules.

Australia is a country of a Rule of Law. Cross the line, mate, and you are spate. You know that. Australia is not a libertarian world.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, pix, consider Australia's gun laws, then compare them to America.

Australia's gun controls a political template for the U.S. | Reuters

 

[pix]

Oh, pix, consider Australia's gun laws, then compare them to America.

Australia's gun controls a political template for the U.S. | Reuters

our gun laws shit all over americas.
we dont have homicides with guns, suicides with guns or masacres with guns.
i dont know what your point is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

;lol: Sure you do. You have far stricter gun laws than the USA, and that is an example of a Rule of Law country.