A 'Moral' Government

Just like I thought you have no personal experience. You can only repeat what you hear on the news and what your church leaders tell you. Live and let live CS. That is really what this is about but the moral majority want to take others freedom of choice away. To answer your question I would not be opposed to the legalization of prostitution either. If drugs were legalized I believe alot of violent crimes would decrease because nobody is going to venture into a seedy neighborhood to score when they could go to the narcotics store and get there baggy there. I also suspect we would end up with less overdoses. Case in point there have been a rash of heroin overdoses lately due to an unusually pure form of heroin hitting the streets. The folks are use to a certain dosage of what they usually get and then from time to time someone releases an uncut drug and they try to do their usual dosage and they die. If it were legal there would be purity standards thus eliminating unintended overdoses.

Quote :

Just like I thought you have no personal experience. You can only repeat what you hear on the news and what your church leaders tell you. Live and let live CS

Incorrect, I had friends in school that experimented with a lot of different drugs. I don't NEED to take them myself to see the affects.

That is really what this is about but the moral majority want to take others freedom of choice away. Because it doesn't just affect yourself.

To answer your question I would not be opposed to the legalization of prostitution either. If drugs were legalized I believe alot of violent crimes would decrease because nobody is going to venture into a seedy neighborhood to score when they could go to the narcotics store and get there baggy there. What about people that commit violent acts because they're on drugs? If you think people won't commit crimes then you aren't seeing the big picture. I also suspect we would end up with less overdoses. People will overdose because they already do now when some have easy access to it. Not everyone acts the same. Some people are irresponsible. Case in point there have been a rash of heroin overdoses lately due to an unusually pure form of heroin hitting the streets. The folks are use to a certain dosage of what they usually get and then from time to time someone releases an uncut drug and they try to do their usual dosage and they die. If it were legal there would be purity standards thus eliminating unintended overdoses.
This is also a bunch of crap. You also believe these great people will be productive members of society?

Ignorance is bliss.
Naivete is cutesypie.
belligerence is a spectacle.
hypoxia is dangerous.

CS, please check your O2 levels.

Quote :

Ignorance is bliss.
Naivete is cutesypie.
belligerence is a spectacle.
hypoxia is dangerous.

CS, please check your O2 levels.

Poor old Fatass. You better snap into a Slim Jim since my ignorance is so hurtful.

CS I will ban you if you use that damn blue color again, can't read shit with that color

Quote :

CS I will ban you if you use that damn blue color again, can't read shit with that color

Sorry it was the only color that was left to use since the others were already in use.

CS Wrote:

"Do you actually believe that making drugs legal then people will be wonderful law obeying citizens of society? There are people that are stupid in this world and you cannot fix stupid. They make it worse on everyone else"

Drugs are illegal now and people do stupid stuff. You are right people do stupid things and they will with or without legalization. I do know our jails and prisons would not be overcrowded if we didn't make criminals out of people simply because they like to imbibe in substances that religious and political leaders find objectionable to their personal beliefs. How is the war on drugs any different than prohibition? I get that your personal beliefs preclude you from using these substances and I tip my hat to you for living your convictions. I do take objection when other people especially the gov't use the threat of jail,fines,or a criminal record to force others to abide by their belief system.

I do believe a lower percentage of people use alcohol today than under Prohibition. Tobacco use is at all time lows. Legalizing drugs/prostitution/gambling does not mean they are just ignored. In California the number of pot growers is so high they are looking at restricting the number of sellers because the profit margin is basically zero. So far, no studies that I have seen show an increase in marijuana use/abuse, just that the buyers/sellers aren't doing it in secret. Like I said,the best way to get cockroaches is to shed light on them. In other countries where drugs are legal but regulated the usage rates stay flat or drop off.

Tobacco use is down, despite it being legal. It is down for a couple main reasons; education on the harmful effects of tobacco, and the 'sin taxes' placed on the product. I don't agree with 'sin taxes', but they are a better option than we have in place now for drugs and other INDIVIDUAL vices. CS, do you have any idea how easy it is to get pot right now in ANY Utah community? Legalizing it will not increase the availability of pot, it will however, lower the costs incurred by law enforcement at the local/state/federal levels. It will decrease the control government has over the people on individual liberty. And, it will take away the biggest money supply to the gangs/cartels.

[quote]Tobacco use is down, despite it being legal. It is down for a couple main reasons; education on the harmful effects of tobacco, and the 'sin taxes' placed on the product. I don't agree with 'sin taxes', but they are a better option than we have in place now for drugs and other INDIVIDUAL vices. CS, do you have any idea how easy it is to get pot right now in ANY Utah community? Sure I know that it's pretty easy to obtain and people use it all the time. How many more people would use it if it were legal? Where you draw the line on illegal drugs? Other drugs are easy to get if you have the conections so should we make those hardcore drugs legal also.
Legalizing it will not increase the availability of pot, it will however, lower the costs incurred by law enforcement at the local/state/federal levels. It will decrease the control government has over the people on individual liberty. And, it will take away the biggest money supply to the gangs/cartels.

They will just come up with another money maker. They won't just magically disappear.[/quote]

Crime WILL go down. The best deterrents are ones that make either the cost of committing the crime too high to be deemed worth doing via tough sentences/fines, and by making the benefits be so small there is no point is committing the crime at all. Very few pawn shops get robbed. Why? Because most pawn shops have armed employees and camera surveillance everywhere. Businesses that have little/cash/valuables on hand are not likely targets for robbery either since there isn't anything worth robbing on the premises. Make it harder, the cost higher, and/or the rewards lower for gangs/cartels and the appeal of being in them goes way down.

Quote :

Crime WILL go down. The best deterrents are ones that make either the cost of committing the crime too high to be deemed worth doing via tough sentences/fines, and by making the benefits be so small there is no point is committing the crime at all. Very few pawn shops get robbed. Why? Because most pawn shops have armed employees and camera surveillance everywhere. Businesses that have little/cash/valuables on hand are not likely targets for robbery either since there isn't anything worth robbing on the premises. Make it harder, the cost higher, and/or the rewards lower for gangs/cartels and the appeal of being in them goes way down.

Liberals seem to want to give these thugs fewer sentences and lesser fines. They blame the way they act on their childhood. If we could get more control of the justice system where people were actually punished for their crimes instead of a slap on the wrist then there might be fewer crimes commited.

Would you be in favor of a death sentences for people that kill someone while drunk driving? Fewer people wouldn't drive drunk right? What about beating someone with a cane if they committed a violent act against someone else? If your a responsible drug user then you have nothing to worse about.

This would also make the crime rate go down.

Ok here is my take on this........ The constitution was set up to be a guideline for a government for the people by the people.... At the time it was set up most of this small nation were God fearing people. That being said they didn't have to make laws that catered to the rights of individual moral beliefs...most of them thought a lot alike... They didn't have drugs on the scale that we do today, abortion was unheard of. Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of man but in the late 1700's it was taboo and forbidden by the Bible hence the government didn't need to go any farther. Fatbass I know you are a huge proponent of church and state separation but as long as there is religion and politics they are going to clash. The moral decay of society has created a need for all of these laws that have been dictated by religion... The religious side wants laws passed to ban ideas and things that are against there beliefs. The non religious side wants laws passed that protect there rights to do thing that the religious side is against.... Is either side right or wrong....On a political scale no....Both sides feel justified in there actions based on the thought process that set up the constitution..... The line in the sand that you mention is impossible to set because people's moral beliefs set the line for them.... If you look at the last 4 presidential elections...they have been close.... This nation is deeply divided and a nation divided will not stand.... I believe that there is no middle ground for this country.... The media on both sides fuels hate and discontent and there is no bipartisan work being done at all....There is an us against them attitude. Now that being said, is there a fix for it?......Personally and this is my belief only and I don't want anyone to think I'm preaching at them.... I feel that everything that happens is pre ordained. I believe that God is in control of every aspect of life. If that make me a religious fanatic then Ill wear that label proud.. I have a biblical view of the world and politics and in my world, everything that happens is spelled out for us in the Bible.... Does that mean I think you should believe that way...Absolutely not...I also believe that God gave us the free agency to choose for ourselves... Just answer me this... If everyone recognized God as the ultimate authority and lived a Christ like life, would this country and world be on a different path? Also I do not claim to be perfect...Look at my signature..I am just stating my opinion. Personally I am against abortion.. In my eyes its murder, but does that give me the right to tell a women she cant have one...no...In the last year my stance on Capital Punishment has changed..I am now against it for the simple fact that I feel that person will have to answer to God and its not my job to judge them. I despise homosexuality but I hate the sin not the sinner....I have several friends that are homosexuals.. I choose not to judge them because only God has that right. I do not agree with their choice and they know I think its wrong but its their choice. The war on drugs is a complete waste of money.... I feel that education is a better route to go instead of wasting money on punishment..... Sorry for the long post Im just stating where i stand on a few of the hot issues right now.........And thanks for the site Yonni...

Plottrunner seems to get it.

Plotty, if everything is "preordained" how can we have agency at the same time?

proutdoors wrote:

Plotty, if everything is "preordained" how can we have agency at the same time?

Thats a religious debate pro not a political debate..... on a world level the moral degeneration of society is all part of the preordained plan....on a personal level it is up to you which way you want to run with it hence the free agency part of my statement. I would continue with this but not here....Maybe we can take it to the religion thread for cs and fatbass.....Yonni is going to have his hand full as it is so I will stick to the thread topics.....

Fair enough.

Is it moral for the government to take from the people and then to give to others who "need"?

On that note I am going camping, be back tomorrow

Yonni wrote:

Is it moral for the government to take from the people and then to give to others who "need"?

Speaking as a skeptical, questioning and non-dogmatic libertarian, I'm not sure if this is more a question of morality or economics, but a harder-core libertarian viewpoint would probably be, "No." On the other hand, most libertarians see a need for a government to collect taxes to fund those services that are best supplied by the government, like the military, police and judicial systems, etc. Taking this into consideration, the question becomes whether or not providing to others in need is a necessary government service, and if so, to what degree is it necessary and under what circumstances.

Ideally, charities, foundations, churches, families and individuals would foot the bill on social services. Realistically, however, in a purely libertarian society, would these institutions be able to cover the costs? It's hard to say since it hasn't been tried recently.

Even though the question of government-sponsored help to those in need is a simple one, determining the answer involves weighing an enormously complex set of variables. It would be easy to simply adopt a purest standpoint of, "No," but this answer would ignore the many variables in favor of just dealing with the consequences of that definitive answer, whatever they might be.

Just to provide some clarity in the variables and the choices involved, here's an extreme hypothetical... Let's say that there's an 85-year-old widow across town whose husband died two years ago of cancer, racking up huge hospital bills and wiping out their joint savings. The woman has no family, few friends, belongs to no churches, shows the beginning stages of dimentia and is in debt $125,000 with no way of paying the bill. Neither she nor her husband had pensions and since this is a libertarian society, she receives no social security. She's already sold her house and is living in a small apartment, and is two months behind on the rent. She has no money to buy her own medication for her heart condition, and is days away from being homeless, living on the street and begging for food.

The charities are maxed out because it's the middle of an unusually severe winter, the economy is dragging and resources are strained. The Salvation Army is turning people away, the churches are asking their members for money, but voluntary contributions aren't cutting it. This elderly woman is only one of millions in similar situations, and the charities just can't cover them all — the resources just aren't there. The news media is starting to report on signs of malnourishment among children and increasingly common incidents of people dying from being unable to pay their heating bills or buy medications.

While all this is happening, there are many who have greatly benefited from this libertarian society. Through their own skill and resources, they've become millionaires. They drive expensive cars, dine at the best restaurants, send their children to the best schools, fly off to exotic vacations and live a life of comparative luxury.

This particular libertarian society feels pity and sorrow for the poor, but maintains that the government has no role in taking money from the rich to feed and clothe them. After all, it's the role of various private charities to cover these problems. The fact that they're sometimes unable to do so is unfortunate, but is not a legitimate role for the government to become involved in treating through forced wealth redistribution (taxation).

So given this purely hypothetical, extreme and oversimplified, but not unrealistic, situation, let me reverse the question of whether or not it's "moral for the government to take from the people and then to give to others who "need." Instead, in a land of abundance, is it moral for society or government to allow widows to be thrown out onto the street and for children to become malnourished?

Personally, I think an essential role of the government is to provide a minimum safety net for its citizens. These minimally acceptable conditions, however, are slippery slopes that often lead to generational crutches, excuses for people to not stand on their own two feet and foster a growing nanny mentality among a society that becomes increasingly dependent upon government protection from personal choices and risks.

The real trick, I think, is to find the right spot where minimal government intervention provides a stable environment around which society and its economy can flourish. That "sweet spot," however, is a difficult one to find, is very slippery, and is difficult to maintain in a balanced equilibrium since reasonable people can and do disagree on just where it lies.

Pete wrote:

So given this purely hypothetical, extreme and oversimplified, but not unrealistic, situation, let me reverse the question of whether or not it's "moral for the government to take from the people and then to give to others who "need." Instead, in a land of abundance, is it moral for society or government to allow widows to be thrown out onto the street and for children to become malnourished?

Using your extreme case of the hypothetical, such a scenario wouldn't exist in a 'true' libertarian society. Your worse case scenarios are only plausible under a climate where there is massive government intervention. I, for one, won't go down the road of fantasy here. What's next, you expect to watch that propaganda expose Avatar?

Pete wrote:

Personally, I think an essential role of the government is to provide a minimum safety net for its citizens. These minimally acceptable conditions, however, are slippery slopes that often lead to generational crutches, excuses for people to not stand on their own two feet and foster a growing nanny mentality among a society that becomes increasingly dependent upon government protection from personal choices and risks.

That is why I hesitate to endorse such 'safety nets', since they rarely if ever remain mere 'safety nets'.

Pete wrote:

The real trick, I think, is to find the right spot where minimal government intervention provides a stable environment around which society and its economy can flourish. That "sweet spot," however, is a difficult one to find, is very slippery, and is difficult to maintain in a balanced equilibrium since reasonable people can and do disagree on just where it lies.

I contend that is exactly what the Founders did when they drafted the Constitution. Sadly, since day one people have been trying to change it.

proutdoors wrote:

Using your extreme case of the hypothetical, such a scenario wouldn't exist in a 'true' libertarian society. Your worse case scenarios are only plausible under a climate where there is massive government intervention. I, for one, won't go down the road of fantasy here. What's next, you expect to watch that propaganda expose Avatar?

I'm unsure how you've concluded that pure libertarianism equates to utopia, but I see no reason to assume that would be the case outside of an Ayn Rand novel.

No criticism meant here Pro — only an observation, but you seem to be attracted to extreme, black and white positions. Last year unyielding conservatism was the answer, but now it's pure, unyielding libertarianism. Call it a natural evolution if you will, but extremist positions (remember, you scored 100% on the political viewpoints test that you linked to) are way too easy, dogmatic, self-filtering and prone to prematurely dismissing alternate viewpoints.

I think that it's important to remember that there are at least two sides to every issue. It's a rare situation when the various sides in any discussion are devoid of legitimate concerns or intellectual worth. It's easy to dismiss liberals, for example, as misguided, but it would be a mistake to dismiss them as fools with no substance behind their concerns and their arguments. As is often the case, right and wrong can depend on viewpoint. The reality of what works best often lies somewhere in the middle, and results from the compromises inherent in not being able to have ones cake and to eat it too.

I've found it interesting that those who espouse a purist, doctrinal approach to real-world problems always find their academic philosophies inadequate to successfully operate within the ambiguous and murky world of society. Whether considering the economic philosophies of Carl Menger or Karl Marx, utopian visions of a perfect order rarely align themselves with applied reality when given the chance for in-practice implementation.

Pete, it was YOU that brought the utopian aspect into the debate, not me. I merely pointed out that your scenario wouldn't happen under such utopian conditions. Then, by some warped sense of 'logic' you spin it to be that sees things a certain way.

I have admitted, REPEATEDLY, that I tend to see things in black and white. Not exactly that hard to see. But, I contend that in many cases seeing the world as all gray is just as dangerous as seeing things as black and white. There is truth, and there is non-truth, and if YOU fail to recognize that in most scenarios it is hard to stand for anything. I will keep seeing things in black and white, you keep seeing things is varying shades of gray, and we will balance each other out.

proutdoors wrote:

Pete, it was YOU that brought the utopian aspect into the debate, not me. I merely pointed out that your scenario wouldn't happen under such utopian conditions.

I first mentioned the word "utopia," but you first described and implied it by saying that the sort of societal problems I listed wouldn't exist in a purely libertarian society. Actually, I suspect they would happen more often since the government would purposely eliminate (or severely restrict) its role as an equalizing agent and moderator.

Now don't get me wrong, I consider myself a libertarian, but I don't consider dogmatic libertarianism to be a recipe for nirvana. There are advantages and dangers in libertarianism. Government, in my opinion, has a legitimate (but sharply limited) role in mitigating those dangers — despite having to do so on a very slippery slope.

proutdoors wrote:

I have admitted, REPEATEDLY, that I tend to see things in black and white. Not exactly that hard to see.

You once seemed to take offense at me labeling you as a right-wing extremist, so I was trying to be tactful.

proutdoors wrote:

But, I contend that in many cases seeing the world as all gray is just as dangerous as seeing things as black and white. There is truth, and there is non-truth, and if YOU fail to recognize that in most scenarios it is hard to stand for anything.

There are things that are demonstrably true and there are things that are demonstrably false. There are also things that are neither and simply a matter of opinion. There are also the far more complex scenarios that are a mixture of contradictory opinions, hoped-for outcomes, personal preferences and mutually exclusive and irresolvable incompatibilities.

Finding the best place "to stand" involves an accurate and realistic assessment of the terrain. In the murky swamp of society, the choice of where to stand might best remain tentative since the ground under one's feet isn't necessarily as solid as it might seem.