Yay or nay towards marajiuana?

Started by Balto, January 30, 2013, 08:04:32 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

BILLY Defiant

Quote from: kramarat on January 31, 2013, 04:52:58 PM
If states are willing to openly disobey the federal government, I don't care if it's pot laws, turning down Obamacare, or refusing federal gun law mandates, it's a step in the right direction.


AHHHH funny you should mention the So called "War on drugs" and Obamaocare. Thanks to Obamaocare we are going to be shelling out even more for the rehab and treatment aspect of the WOD

See, I know for a fact that more than HALF of those trillions of dollars  vis a vis WOD were spent on REHABILITATION and TREATMENT as well as education.

Both were apparent failures, the Methadone program half way houses Govt rehab programs have about a 3% recovery rate. Education, aimed at YOUTH and the ONLY THING THAT COULD HAVE WORKED obviously failed because we have more kids using Marijuana and other drugs now than ever before...thanks to the influence DRUG CULTURE.
It seems now that the schools have gotten on board with the FDA and the Psychiatric establisment and almost seem to PROMOTE the drugging of our youth who exhibit "behavioral problems".

You don't think there might be a realtionship between saturating young people and the increase in violent behavior do you? Nahhhhh, didn't think so... :rolleyes:

Evil operates best when it is disguised for what it truly is.

kramarat

QuoteYou don't think there might be a realtionship between saturating young people and the increase in violent behavior do you? Nahhhhh, didn't think so...

Considering that virtually all of the prescription drugs that they are being saturated with, say, "May cause increased depression and suicidal thoughts", on the label; I'd say there's no question about it.

TowardLiberty

Quote from: kramarat on February 01, 2013, 03:04:53 PM
That's where we part ways. I think the founders' thoughts on government's role were pretty good.

Well, they were.

But they weren't the end all be all of human thought on the subject.

kramarat

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 01, 2013, 04:09:07 PM
Well, they were.

But they weren't the end all be all of human thought on the subject.

That's exactly what the liberals say, as they call for further government control over our lives, and utter dependency on them for everything.

When something better comes along than our founding documents, and I see it working perfectly in another country, maybe we could consider some minor changes. I won't be holding my breath.

TowardLiberty

Quote from: kramarat on February 01, 2013, 04:15:47 PM
That's exactly what the liberals say, as they call for further government control over our lives, and utter dependency on them for everything.

Sure.

And I am saying the same thing only with a different conclusion- the founders had the right goals, they simply chose the wrong means.

Rather than expanding the government from the disfunctional articles, with a constitution, the logical path would be even further de-centralization, toward a market based society.

Quote
When something better comes along than our founding documents, and I see it working perfectly in another country, maybe we could consider some minor changes. I won't be holding my breath.

I dont think man is capable of tinkering with, or designing, a better system than natural liberty.

So the very idea that someone would look to the actions of another government for ideas about how to plan society here at home, strike me as fundamentally unsound.

Rather, I see society as a spontaneous order.

Nothing new needs to be invented.

It just needs freedom to evolve.

kramarat

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 01, 2013, 04:28:49 PM
Sure.

And I am saying the same thing only with a different conclusion- the founders had the right goals, they simply chose the wrong means.

Rather than expanding the government from the disfunctional articles, with a constitution, the logical path would be even further de-centralization, toward a market based society.

I dont think man is capable of tinkering with, or designing, a better system than natural liberty.

So the very idea that someone would look to the actions of another government for ideas about how to plan society here at home, strike me as fundamentally unsound.

Rather, I see society as a spontaneous order.

Nothing new needs to be invented.

It just needs freedom to evolve.

One thing that the founders dealt with, (probably the main thing), is human nature.

It's something that liberals and your style of libertarianism don't take into consideration. Both assume that humans are inherently good, and will default to doing the right thing.

History has repeatedly proven otherwise.

The founders despised the entire notion of centralized government; they also knew that it was necessary, but had to be strictly limited.

Those limitations are being slowly wiped away.

TowardLiberty

Quote from: kramarat on February 01, 2013, 04:38:13 PM
One thing that the founders dealt with, (probably the main thing), is human nature.

It's something that liberals and your style of libertarianism don't take into consideration. Both assume that humans are inherently good, and will default to doing the right thing.



It definitely applies to liberals, conservatives and statists, (even believers in limited government) but the charge rings hollow when laid on libertarians.

I said this, earlier:

Quote
Though, I do find the idea that in putting the protection of property and person into the hands of a compulsory monopolist, we should expect efficiency in this realm, or in any other that has been monopolized in such a fashion, to be somewhat utopian.

I would turn Hobbes' argument upside down and claim that the flawed nature of man necessitates decentralized and voluntary forms of decision making, otherwise the incentives are such that men will use others, not as ends, but merely as means.

And then life will be nasty, brutish and short.

The implication of this line of argument is that those who put mere mortals in power and expect a rational order are but fooling themselves.

The nature of man is such that power corrupts him.

Therefore, no rational system of governing is possible- it is just not in the nature of man.

So I would turn the argument around and say that it is the anarchist libertarians who have a realistic understanding of human nature.

Where as liberals, statists and so on all share an irrational view of man, rooted in the thought of Thomas Hobbes.

I would even go so far as to say the Hobbesian view is utopian in the extreme.




kramarat

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 01, 2013, 05:12:08 PM
It definitely applies to liberals, conservatives and statists, (even believers in limited government) but the charge rings hollow when laid on libertarians.

I said this, earlier:

The implication of this line of argument is that those who put mere mortals in power and expect a rational order are but fooling themselves.

The nature of man is such that power corrupts him.

Therefore, no rational system of governing is possible- it is just not in the nature of man.

So I would turn the argument around and say that it is the anarchist libertarians who have a realistic understanding of human nature.

Where as liberals, statists and so on all share an irrational view of man, rooted in the thought of Thomas Hobbes.

I would even go so far as to say the Hobbesian view is utopian in the extreme.

Mere mortals, (in the US), were never intended to be in power. They were intended to represent the people.

I don't know who Thomas Hobbes is, but there will always be government.

It doesn't require a belief in God to recognize the duality of human nature. The evil, (or ill intentioned), will always seek to control the good..............and will; if we assume that the majority are good people, then a representative government, (in theory), should fall on the side of good. We are losing that. I think it's part of the reason that the GOP can't gain traction; they want to control, not represent.

The democrats also want to have complete control, but they are willing to give away the farm to get there. The pubs are a little more pragmatic.

TowardLiberty

Quote from: kramarat on February 01, 2013, 05:24:30 PM
Mere mortals, (in the US), were never intended to be in power. They were intended to represent the people.

Well, what was intended was mighty different from what came to pass.

One need only look at the 10th amendment for that lesson.

Quote

I don't know who Thomas Hobbes is, but there will always be government.

I am kind of surprised to see you say that. Thomas Hobbes is a giant in political philosophy.

And there is no reason to think that there will always be a government.

People have free will. Choice exists.

Quote

It doesn't require a belief in God to recognize the duality of human nature. The evil, (or ill intentioned), will always seek to control the good..............and will; if we assume that the majority are good people, then a representative government, (in theory), should fall on the side of good. We are losing that. I think it's part of the reason that the GOP can't gain traction; they want to control, not represent.

The democrats also want to have complete control, but they are willing to give away the farm to get there. The pubs are a little more pragmatic.

I can't think in those partisan terms. For me they are both mechanisms of control and enforced serfdom.


TowardLiberty

Thomas Hobbes argued that men's natures are such that they are given to using each other rather than cooperating.

So he posited that a state of nature or an environment without central authority, would devolve into chaos.

The error in his reasoning is to forget that his central authority is populated by those same flawed humans, and the nature that led one to predate on another, in the state of nature, still exists, and is magnified even further, when power is attained over others.

kramarat

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 01, 2013, 05:38:44 PM
Thomas Hobbes argued that men's natures are such that they are given to using each other rather than cooperating.

So he posited that a state of nature or an environment without central authority, would devolve into chaos.

The error in his reasoning is to forget that his central authority is populated by those same flawed humans, and the nature that led one to predate on another, in the state of nature, still exists, and is magnified even further, when power is attained over others.

Ever read Lord of the Flies?

Does free thought exist, or is every human being shaped by the thoughts of others?

Philosophical babble is fun and thought provoking, but it is emmitted by other flawed humans, and therefore, should be taken with a grain of salt.

I run on the concept that things are incredibly simple, recognizing it is the hard part.

TowardLiberty

Quote from: kramarat on February 01, 2013, 06:46:30 PM
Ever read Lord of the Flies?

No, I have not. But I have a rudimentary idea of what it is about.[/quote]

Does free thought exist, or is every human being shaped by the thoughts of others?[/quote]

It is both.

They have free will but they are influenced by others, and are acting with limited knowledge, under genuine uncertainty about the future.

Sort of a feedback loop.

Quote
Philosophical babble is fun and thought provoking, but it is emmitted by other flawed humans, and therefore, should be taken with a grain of salt.

I run on the concept that things are incredibly simple, recognizing it is the hard part.

I share that view.

kramarat

Quote from: TowardLiberty on February 01, 2013, 08:16:46 PM
No, I have not. But I have a rudimentary idea of what it is about.

Does free thought exist, or is every human being shaped by the thoughts of others?

It is both.

They have free will but they are influenced by others, and are acting with limited knowledge, under genuine uncertainty about the future.

Sort of a feedback loop.

I share that view.

If you get a chance, you should read that book. I read it in about 1977, and I still draw off it's insights.............which I didn't get at the time.

Rockntractor

Legalize pot, I don't really care, it isn't going to save the world and it won't end it.
With the problems we have in this country right now that are coming to a head, this is not even on my top 500 list.

Did they every find a real way to get rid of ring around the collar?

walkstall

Quote from: Rockntractor on February 01, 2013, 09:08:24 PM
Legalize pot, I don't really care, it isn't going to save the world and it won't end it.
With the problems we have in this country right now that are coming to a head, this is not even on my top 500 list.

Did they every find a real way to get rid of ring around the collar?

Yes they just removed the collar.
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."