This is in this thread and not the other because this is much more than weed, this is a libertarians dream on many levels. JFK got shot over this. Ron Paul is smiling.
This is very very cool. IIRC one of the Dakotas has their own state banking system which has been in place for decades. The state has been prospering as a direct result.
And yes about JFK ...
. OBTW ... The Federal banking system has doing the same thing to gun store owners for about the past 10 or so years. They have a hard time keeping a bank that will handle their money. And their businesses are legal and well regulated ...
As for the statist claim...I've only ever heard that from anarchists before, and I think even they realize how silly it sounds. But whatever floats your valves.
Hey, I am doing my best here to paint Libertarians as mainstream and centrist. We all want more Libertarians elected to office, no?
Lift the libertarian's skirt a bit and there you find the essence of a devoted Statist. With just a slight albeit interesting variation on how to do Statism.
Social anarchists make a more gallant attempt to dismantle the State as much as possible. Just sayin'.
At one point I was referencing the harm reduction approach literature which I vaguely recall getting some support from Libertarian writers.
The fact that a popular, widely-used drug like cannabis is dangerous is an excellent reason for legalizing it. Social control is largely sacrificed in a black market situation.
If you want to make a harm reduction argument I'm down with that, but I'd also argue that it really doesn't apply to cannabis. "Dangerous" is a relative term of course. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were getting at.
As for the statist claim...I've only ever heard that from anarchists before, and I think even they realize how silly it sounds. But whatever floats your valves.
Lift the libertarian's skirt a bit and there you find the essence of a devoted Statist. With just a slight albeit interesting variation on how to do Statism.
Social anarchists make a more gallant attempt to dismantle the State as much as possible. Just sayin'.
At one point I was referencing the harm reduction approach literature which I vaguely recall getting some support from Libertarian writers.
The fact that a popular, widely-used drug like cannabis is dangerous is an excellent reason for legalizing it. Social control is largely sacrificed in a black market situation.
Well, for all I know Lazy8 could be out chasing the baetis hatch or perhaps one of the early stonefly hatches. Let me add to the initial assertion.
As soon as Libertarians come up with better ways of defending the country, with better ways of assuring security and with better ways of attaining public policy goals, then they are typically contributing to a stronger, more efficient, more productive state.
Discuss.
If you must know I was in Seattle getting my dance on and soaking up some most excellent music.
If you want those better ideas discussed you need to demonstrate that you read what gets written. Those better ways of doing things (or simply not doing them, as some of them aren't legitimate social objectives in the first place) have been discussed. If you have a specific policy question fire away.
A Another 10 years and cannabis will be fully legal across the USA with the exception of some hold-out states. Now here's an easy philosophical challenge for Libertarians.
B Many of those in favour of legalization will argue that recreational cannabis should be legal precisely because it is dangerous. C I other words, legalizing cannabis allows the state to expand its influence so it can 'regulate' more effectively.
D So, are Libertarians in favour of a more powerful, effective state?
I'll try to parse this one wobbly concept at a time: A Legal in 10 years: yay! I'm betting on less than 5. B Don't care what many of those in favour are arguing, tho:
1. I've never, in 40 years of libertarian activism, ever heard anyone argue that—likely because 2. "It should be legal because it's dangerous" is a stupid argument.
C Your second assertion does not follow. Legalizing things means less state control. Period.
If you want to argue that legalizing a trade or substance means the state can regulate that trade or substance (to a lesser degree than an outright ban) then...um, yeah, that happens. California, for instance, taxed legal weed at such an absurdly high rate that people were sticking to the black market. Colorado's less-heavy-handed approach resulted in substantial revenue for the state, which has other lessons for taxation that I won't digress into here.
In other words the possibility that a state might clumsily interfere with a market is not an argument for the state to...interfere with a market in a more-drastic fashion. And as an argument against advocating for less state interference in markets it's utterly incoherent. D More powerful: no. More effective: maybe, but only at the legitimate purposes of a state.
Another 10 years and cannabis will be fully legal across the USA with the exception of some hold-out states. Now here's an easy philosophical challenge for Libertarians.
Many of those in favour of legalization will argue that recreational cannabis should be legal precisely because it is dangerous. I other words, legalizing cannabis allows the state to expand its influence so it can 'regulate' more effectively.
So, are Libertarians in favour of a more powerful, effective state?
Yea sure whatevs better than being federally enforced as illegal, but you are correct more regulation and control is a problem already illustrated by Monsanto's moving in on the business. However that is just a small relatively insignificant part of all this. The real issue is the bypassing of the Federal Reserve which should be shut down completely and relinquishing federal control of the money. Now I will let Lazy school you on why that is a ridiculous non starter question.
Well, for all I know Lazy8 could be out chasing the baetis hatch or perhaps one of the early stonefly hatches. Let me add to the initial assertion.
As soon as Libertarians come up with better ways of defending the country, with better ways of assuring security and with better ways of attaining public policy goals, then they are typically contributing to a stronger, more efficient, more productive state. Discuss.
Which is fine, only the anarchist extreme version of Libertarians would advocate no government at all. We want more efficient and productive government, but are extremely and rightfully suspicious of the stronger part and demand proving the need for the power in every instance is vetted properly and in line with the Constitution.
Por ejemple', I advocate a better way to defend the country by bringing all of our troops home and only meddling in others affairs if it can be proven that the homeland is in danger from offensive action. This will immediately make us a lot safer. There that was easy and did not increase the power of the government.
Another 10 years and cannabis will be fully legal across the USA with the exception of some hold-out states. Now here's an easy philosophical challenge for Libertarians.
Many of those in favour of legalization will argue that recreational cannabis should be legal precisely because it is dangerous. I other words, legalizing cannabis allows the state to expand its influence so it can 'regulate' more effectively.
So, are Libertarians in favour of a more powerful, effective state?
Yea sure whatevs better than being federally enforced as illegal, but you are correct more regulation and control is a problem already illustrated by Monsanto's moving in on the business. However that is just a small relatively insignificant part of all this. The real issue is the bypassing of the Federal Reserve which should be shut down completely and relinquishing federal control of the money. Now I will let Lazy school you on why that is a ridiculous non starter question.
Well, for all I know Lazy8 could be out chasing the baetis hatch or perhaps one of the early stonefly hatches. Let me add to the initial assertion.
As soon as Libertarians come up with better ways of defending the country, with better ways of assuring security and with better ways of attaining public policy goals, then they are typically contributing to a stronger, more efficient, more productive state. Discuss.
Another 10 years and cannabis will be fully legal across the USA with the exception of some hold-out states. Now here's an easy philosophical challenge for Libertarians.
Many of those in favour of legalization will argue that recreational cannabis should be legal precisely because it is dangerous. I other words, legalizing cannabis allows the state to expand its influence so it can 'regulate' more effectively.
So, are Libertarians in favour of a more powerful, effective state?
Yea sure whatevs better than being federally enforced as illegal, but you are correct more regulation and control is a problem already illustrated by Monsanto's moving in on the business. However that is just a small relatively insignificant part of all this. The real issue is the bypassing of the Federal Reserve which should be shut down completely and relinquishing federal control of the money. Now I will let Lazy school you on why that is a ridiculous non starter question.
Another 10 years and cannabis will be fully legal across the USA with the exception of some hold-out states.
Now here's an easy philosophical challenge for Libertarians.
Many of those in favour of legalization will argue that recreational cannabis should be legal precisely because it is dangerous. In other words, legalizing cannabis allows the state to expand its influence so it can 'regulate' more effectively.
So, are Libertarians in favour of a more powerful, effective state?
This is in this thread and not the other because this is much more than weed, this is a libertarians dream on many levels. JFK got shot over this. Ron Paul is smiling.
I can agree with pretty well all of that, just, who is behind this social policy you are talking about? some kind of collective? One of those collectives that trample over the rights of individuals executing an ill-conceived inefficient agenda to rob the rich of their well-begotten gains to benefit the poor and needy? You're not some kind of socialist are you?
Re a right to water: when I grew up (New Zealand) the right to water was enshrined in common law (I am not a lawyer so correct me if I an wrong) which sounded pretty fair at the time. The upshot was you could always get free tap water at any restaurant. In fact we just served it as a matter of course. One of those civilised practices that I kind of like.
The right to water is a pretty good example of how the distinction between rights and policies is pretty grey. Let's say a man dying of thirst in the desert comes upon a wild stream flowing across private property. He drinks his fill. Should he be arrested for theft?
Water. The right to access flowing water deemed public and crown land in general is common enough in former British colonies. Though as far as I know, the public cannot willy nilly privatize water from a public water body.
In the example you give, I cannot imagine somebody being charged with taking a drink of water. But the individual might be charged with trespassing if she did not vacate the private land immediately.
Let's talk about the de facto entitlement right to open access sport fishing on public waters. It is not enshrined in the Canadian charter of rights but is very much a political reality. As a consequence, this open access set-up means that righteous BC anglers get to bully and intimidate First Nations (native BCers) on the water. Is that a good state of affairs?
Actually most of the really outrageous violence on British Columbia salmon flows is between second comer anglers. Knifings, gaffings, fist fights, smashed in radiators.
The open-access ideologues in the angling world will argue that "free" is important for poor people. The truth is that poor people cannot afford the vehicles and fossil fuels to get to the best angling. So as open access mayhem degrades the quality of sport fishing close to large population centres, rich people simply spend more on carbon-emitting fuels to get to the quality angling.
Naturally, many BCers including anglers spend a lot of air time decrying the cultural inferiority of BC natives just like Israelis constantly point to the cultural inferiority of the non-Jewish residents of the former Palestinian mandate. The big boot heels fit better that way.
That is definitely weighty material that you are discussing.
I tend to go about this by working backwards from social objectives. In that respect, a minimal set of universally recognized human rights helps get humanity to and stay at a better socio-economic outcome.
I oppose conferring the status of rights on many human needs and wants. The right to clean water should not be a human right. Though it should be an important social policy goal. The right to nutritious food should not be a human right though clearly it is a policy goal that many support.
Housing should not be a human right. Owning a single family home should neither be a `right` nor a social policy objective. As a matter of social policy, I believe it is important and very much to our collective advantage to provide safe shelter for the destitute among us. Not public housing.
Medical care is not or at least should not be a human right. Publicly funded health care for all is a public policy goal that all rich western nations and many others have adopted.
The strong rights-based approach leads to entitlement-driven social policy that far too often has very negative consequences.
I am also concerned about the integrity of our democratic system. A rights based approach tends to confer political decision making to courts and judges. That is wrong on many levels. Policy making should reside with elected representatives.
I can agree with pretty well all of that, just, who is behind this social policy you are talking about? some kind of collective? One of those collectives that trample over the rights of individuals executing an ill-conceived inefficient agenda to rob the rich of their well-begotten gains to benefit the poor and needy? You're not some kind of socialist are you?
Re a right to water: when I grew up (New Zealand) the right to water was enshrined in common law (I am not a lawyer so correct me if I an wrong) which sounded pretty fair at the time. The upshot was you could always get free tap water at any restaurant. In fact we just served it as a matter of course. One of those civilised practices that I kind of like.
The right to water is a pretty good example of how the distinction between rights and policies is pretty grey. Let's say a man dying of thirst in the desert comes upon a wild stream flowing across private property. He drinks his fill. Should he be arrested for theft?
That is definitely weighty material that you are discussing.
I tend to go about this by working backwards from social objectives. In that respect, a minimal set of universally recognized human rights helps get humanity to and stay at a better socio-economic outcome.
I oppose conferring the status of rights on many human needs and wants. The right to clean water should not be a human right. Though it should be an important social policy goal. The right to nutritious food should not be a human right though clearly it is a policy goal that many support.
Housing should not be a human right. Owning a single family home should neither be a `right` nor a social policy objective. As a matter of social policy, I believe it is important and very much to our collective advantage to provide safe shelter for the destitute among us. Not public housing.
Medical care is not or at least should not be a human right. Publicly funded health care for all is a public policy goal that all rich western nations and many others have adopted.
The strong rights-based approach leads to entitlement-driven social policy that far too often has very negative consequences.
I am also concerned about the integrity of our democratic system. A rights based approach tends to confer political decision making to courts and judges. That is wrong on many levels. Policy making should reside with elected representatives.
Me thinks Lazy8 is carrying this debate so far.....
The problem is not that Lazy8 believes in human rights, for we all do to some extent. The problem is that because he assumes they must be universal and logically consistent, he necessarily restricts them to a small subset, which hey presto, absolves rich white guys like me from not being my brother's keeper.
Moreover, because he divorces human rights from any social or historical context, which admittedly has its appeal, he makes an artificial distinction between the individual and the society he or she finds himself in. It's neat, It's tidy. It looks great on paper. But it is woefully inadequate.
When you have guys like Peter Thiel on your team, a guy who sells the tools to government to spy on its citizens, (because it is not the gun right? but the guy who uses it), then it is high time you sat down and thought about your philosophy.
Secondly, whether rights exist in the nether nether or emerge from social discourse and exchange is actually totally irrelevant in practice. What matters in practice is how we decide to get along with each other and what rules we want to play by. But this is not the storybook Lazy is playing by. He argues that we must toss out a whole lot of our social construction because it has no basis on his chosen set of human rights. In the end, his argument is nullified by his own political impotence. Libertarianism will only become a force when enough people consent to its principles and it becomes the guiding principle along which we live, which kind of proves my point, don't you think?
addendum: I think the main problem is this: If Lazy remained with the claim that his concept of rights is his belief. I would have no problem with it. But he goes one fatal step further. Because he thinks his set of natural rights is logically consistent and universal it is more than just a system of beliefs he cherishes but something immutable in the nature of the world. Which means he is right and everyone else who differs from his opinion must be wrong. This is just religious dogma wrapped up in different clothes.
