Legalization of Drugs

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

If that is your Market for Liberty essay again . . . I did in fact read it. I came away unimpressed and unswayed. It appears huskertim is not impressed either.

 

Also . . . you should probably at least put a link as a citation rather than just posting it as your own.

 

As usual, you're entitled to your opinions, as wrong and contradictory as they may be. You might be unimpressed with the idea of freedom but whether you like it or not, it will come about. Maybe you're afraid of personal responsibility, maybe you enjoy watching others suffer, or maybe you'd rather have a nanny, ruling your every move for the rest of your life, but I do not. I'd rather think for myself and live in a stateless society, where individuals are held responsible for their actions and allowed to reap the benefits of their productivity rather then being forced to have it squandered on the inefficient and brutal catastrophes perpetrated by government. Your wonderful "government" is slowly eating itself from the inside and when it collapses I hope you're prepared.

 

And as for posting it as my own, I did no such thing. Did I say that I wrote it? If I remember correctly, I said read this essay Man & Society. I never said read this essay I wrote. I've linked to that exact chapter over 20 times (probably even a few times in this very same thread). Maybe if you were actually open-minded enough to read it, you would have known that.

 

Here's a excellent quote for you, taken from the book that for some reason you have learned to hate so well.

 

"government means some men governing—ruling over—others by force, and this is what we must tell the people we want to convince. When some men rule over others, a condition of slavery exists, and slavery is wrong under any circumstances. To advocate limited government is to advocate limited slavery. To say that government is a necessary prerequisite for a civilized society is to say that slavery is necessary for a civilized society. To say that men cannot protect their freedom without a government is to say that men cannot protect their freedom without a system of slavery. Slavery is never either right or necessary . . . and neither is that form of slavery called government. We must tell people that government isn't a necessary

evil; it's an unnecessary one."

[SOCALHUSKER]

Heck with legalizin' drugs and stuff.

Somewhere out of this, I've gotta figure out a way to eliminate my PRIVATE government (HOA).

 

They've been sending me letters all year and I'm just too afraid to open them..Last I checked, they were fining me $150 for allowing my mesquite tree to raise a family of seedlings for later transplant to my bare backyard.

 

Meanwhile..six of the houses in my culdesac are now empty.

 

 

Maybe I should run for congress so's I can regain some civil liberties.

 

Yeah, HOA's suck too!!

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

3) What form of government would NOT work on paper?

 

 

Every form of government you can think of. All government is a contradiction in itself.

 

Government is created to make up for the fallibility of man, yet all government consists of man. Since that is the case, how can government fix anything man cannot?

 

Wait a second . . . if government is just people . . . then how will the removal of government suddenly make those same people live in harmony?

 

The abolition of government doesn't make men live in harmony. The elimation of government destroys the coercion and force resulting from government, which some men use as a tool to promote evil and prevent harmony. It's called striking the root. Since government is the tool evil men use to destroy liberty, government must be eliminated to ensure each individual's right to liberty exists.

 

Nothing or nobody can force men to live in harmony if they choose not to. Rather, a market anarchist society makes it extremly difficult, without sacrificing the liberties of others, for men who use coercion or force to live, do business or profit from their evil. Who would ever do business with someone evil, when fair competition is available, and the resulting consequences of doing business with evil would not be in their best interest? How would those who commit violations survive if no one would do business with them? This reason alone prevents a majority of violations from occuring and is the only fair and just way of holding those who choose to violate other's rights responsible for their actions.

 

"Government is essentially the negation of liberty." - Ludwig von Mises

[caveman99]

I got confused, I didn't think I chose to enter the Anarchist thread again?

[SOCALHUSKER]

I got confused, I didn't think I chose to enter the Anarchist thread again?

 

No reason to be confused. Just look at it as being informed that the coercion and force of government has indeed extended into all aspects of politics. There's no other way to explain it. Read and learn.

[caveman99]

I got confused, I didn't think I chose to enter the Anarchist thread again?

 

No reason to be confused. Just look at it as being informed that the coercion and force of government has indeed extended into all aspects of politics. There's no other way to explain it. Read and learn.

I guess I forgot to add this

[SOCALHUSKER]

I got confused, I didn't think I chose to enter the Anarchist thread again?

 

No reason to be confused. Just look at it as being informed that the coercion and force of government has indeed extended into all aspects of politics. There's no other way to explain it. Read and learn.

I guess I forgot to add this

 

I figured as much.

 

I was just messing!! Sort of

[carlfense]

 

If that is your Market for Liberty essay again . . . I did in fact read it. I came away unimpressed and unswayed. It appears huskertim is not impressed either.

 

Also . . . you should probably at least put a link as a citation rather than just posting it as your own.

 

As usual, you're entitled to your opinions, as wrong and contradictory as they may be. You might be unimpressed with the idea of freedom but whether you like it or not, it will come about. Maybe you're afraid of personal responsibility, maybe you enjoy watching others suffer, or maybe you'd rather have a nanny, ruling your every move for the rest of your life, but I do not. I'd rather think for myself and live in a stateless society, where individuals are held responsible for their actions and allowed to reap the benefits of their productivity rather then being forced to have it squandered on the inefficient and brutal catastrophes perpetrated by government. Your wonderful "government" is slowly eating itself from the inside and when it collapses I hope you're prepared.

 

And as for posting it as my own, I did no such thing. Did I say that I wrote it? If I remember correctly, I said read this essay Man & Society. I never said read this essay I wrote. I've linked to that exact chapter over 20 times (probably even a few times in this very same thread). Maybe if you were actually open-minded enough to read it, you would have known that.

 

Here's a excellent quote for you, taken from the book that for some reason you have learned to hate so well.

 

"government means some men governing—ruling over—others by force, and this is what we must tell the people we want to convince. When some men rule over others, a condition of slavery exists, and slavery is wrong under any circumstances. To advocate limited government is to advocate limited slavery. To say that government is a necessary prerequisite for a civilized society is to say that slavery is necessary for a civilized society. To say that men cannot protect their freedom without a government is to say that men cannot protect their freedom without a system of slavery. Slavery is never either right or necessary . . . and neither is that form of slavery called government. We must tell people that government isn't a necessary

evil; it's an unnecessary one."

 

Do you even read what you write? Incredible.

 

Also . . . please direct me to the post where I said government was wonderful. I seem to have misplaced it.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Do you even read what you write? Incredible.

 

Also . . . please direct me to the post where I said government was wonderful. I seem to have misplaced it.

 

Actually I read just about everything you post and nearly all the links you provide. This is what allows me to correctly state that you think government is "wonderful." You are the textbook definition of a statist. If you don't think so, maybe you need to go back and reread some of your posts to see what I mean. You might not directly state that government is wonderful but you sure imply it.

 

You're the one who thinks, wrongly I might add, that society cannot function without government, that government actually solves problems, that government intervention is needed to counteract greed, that government theft through taxation is OK, that government violations of liberty are OK and that the use of coercion and force by government is OK. These are just a few examples off the top of my head of things you have said and I'm sure If I went back I could dig up plenty of other fallicious arguments. And since that is the case, how could it not then be deduced that you believe government is wonderful? Please tell me!?!

[carlfense]

Do you even read what you write? Incredible.

 

Also . . . please direct me to the post where I said government was wonderful. I seem to have misplaced it.

 

Actually I read just about everything you post and nearly all the links you provide. This is what allows me to correctly state that you think government is "wonderful." You are the textbook definition of a statist. If you don't think so, maybe you need to go back and reread some of your posts to see what I mean. You might not directly state that government is wonderful but you sure imply it.

 

You're the one who thinks, wrongly I might add, that society cannot function without government, that government actually solves problems, that government intervention is needed to counteract greed, that government theft through taxation is OK, that government violations of liberty are OK and that the use of coercion and force by government is OK. These are just a few examples off the top of my head of things you have said and I'm sure If I went back I could dig up plenty of other fallicious arguments. And since that is the case, how could it not then be deduced that you believe government is wonderful? Please tell me!?!

 

Uh huh. Necessary = wonderful. Makes sense to me.

 

And I assume you mean "fallacious."

[HUSKER 37]

Wait a minute...

 

If we get rid of our government..Who gets control of our nukes?

 

South Korea?

 

The Crips and/or the Bloods?

 

 

Or can we magically get rid of their Governments too?

 

 

What about defending against big oil companies or ability for a quick strike against mean and nasty Aliens from another galaxy?? or Asteroids?

 

[carlfense]

Wait a minute...

 

If we get rid of our government..Who gets control of our nukes?

 

South Korea?

 

The Crips and/or the Bloods?

 

 

Or can we magically get rid of their Governments too?

 

 

What about defending against big oil companies or ability for a quick strike against mean and nasty Aliens from another galaxy?? or Asteroids?

 

 

I can handle this one:

 

The nuclear weapons would obviously be managed by the people in the nuclear weapons business. Those people would obviously be trustworthy to handle the weapons because people always act in their own best interest . . . and those same people know that using their own nukes is not in their best interest because no one would want to do business with a nuclear weapons business who uses their nuclear weapons. Also, it'd be cheaper and more streamlined than government controlled nukes.

 

How did I do?

[HUSKER 37]

Wait a minute...

 

If we get rid of our government..Who gets control of our nukes?

 

South Korea?

 

The Crips and/or the Bloods?

 

 

Or can we magically get rid of their Governments too?

 

 

What about defending against big oil companies or ability for a quick strike against mean and nasty Aliens from another galaxy?? or Asteroids?

 

 

I can handle this one:

 

The nuclear weapons would obviously be managed by the people in the nuclear weapons business. Those people would obviously be trustworthy to handle the weapons because people always act in their own best interest . . . and those same people know that using their own nukes is not in their best interest because no one would want to do business with a nuclear weapons business who uses their nuclear weapons. Also, it'd be cheaper and more streamlined than government controlled nukes.

 

How did I do?

 

Not bad...

 

 

Assuming they get there first....

 

But..Who's goona pay them?

[carlfense]

Wait a minute...

 

If we get rid of our government..Who gets control of our nukes?

 

South Korea?

 

The Crips and/or the Bloods?

 

 

Or can we magically get rid of their Governments too?

 

 

What about defending against big oil companies or ability for a quick strike against mean and nasty Aliens from another galaxy?? or Asteroids?

 

 

I can handle this one:

 

The nuclear weapons would obviously be managed by the people in the nuclear weapons business. Those people would obviously be trustworthy to handle the weapons because people always act in their own best interest . . . and those same people know that using their own nukes is not in their best interest because no one would want to do business with a nuclear weapons business who uses their nuclear weapons. Also, it'd be cheaper and more streamlined than government controlled nukes.

 

How did I do?

 

Not bad...

 

 

Assuming they get there first....

 

But..Who's goona pay them?

 

I know and I agree with you. I tried to plug nuclear weapons into the default anarchy explanation despite how absurd it sounds to me.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Do you even read what you write? Incredible.

 

Also . . . please direct me to the post where I said government was wonderful. I seem to have misplaced it.

 

Actually I read just about everything you post and nearly all the links you provide. This is what allows me to correctly state that you think government is "wonderful." You are the textbook definition of a statist. If you don't think so, maybe you need to go back and reread some of your posts to see what I mean. You might not directly state that government is wonderful but you sure imply it.

 

You're the one who thinks, wrongly I might add, that society cannot function without government, that government actually solves problems, that government intervention is needed to counteract greed, that government theft through taxation is OK, that government violations of liberty are OK and that the use of coercion and force by government is OK. These are just a few examples off the top of my head of things you have said and I'm sure If I went back I could dig up plenty of other fallicious arguments. And since that is the case, how could it not then be deduced that you believe government is wonderful? Please tell me!?!

 

Uh huh. Necessary = wonderful. Makes sense to me.

 

And I assume you mean "fallacious."

 

Yes, fallacious. Thanks Webster.