NationStates Jolt Archive

That's right, for the first time in my life I met, live in person, a diehard freemarket capitalist and social liberal. I've never encountered one of these in England ever as I think they're quite a small group round here. More often than not anyone over here who's rightwing is also socially conservative.

He was a very nice guy to be fair. Although he has just started drug dealing. Haha, says somethin about what kind of people support free markets.

Lol.

United Time Lords, I love your sig :D

Hell, I know a Libertarian. He's a total gun nut-- has a couple automatic weapons, countless hunting rifles, and plays paintball and Counterstrike like he's preparing for Armageddon.

whats the life expectancy for a drug dealer in the UK?

are there big legal penalties for being in the business?

Hell, I know a Libertarian. He's a total gun nut-- has a couple automatic weapons, countless hunting rifles, and plays paintball and Counterstrike like he's preparing for Armageddon.

My guy was training to use samurai swords...

United Time Lords, I love your sig :D

I agree...that's a beauty!!! For the record, I'm a proud Libertarian!!!

Libertarians want a win-win world of peace and plenty. And we believe that the only way to get it is through self-government... not others-government.
Self-government is the combination of personal responsibility and tolerance. Responsibility means you govern yourself. Tolerance means you don't force your values on peaceful, honest people.

Although he has just started drug dealing. Haha, says somethin about what kind of people support free markets.

Actually, it doesn't really say anything at all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization)

I agree...that's a beauty!!! For the record, I'm a proud Libertarian!!!

Libertarians want a win-win world of peace and plenty. And we believe that the only way to get it is through self-government... not others-government.
Self-government is the combination of personal responsibility and tolerance. Responsibility means you govern yourself. Tolerance means you don't force your values on peaceful, honest people.

*high-fives and hands you a box of weed*

And UTL... That sig is classic! You're also getting a box of weed.

*hands*

Although he has just started drug dealing. Haha, says somethin about what kind of people support free markets.

He seems to be a practicing libertarian, more power to him.

I know a few. Heck, I know more Libertarians than fellow Socialists. None of them deal drugs though.

He seems to be a practicing libertarian, more power to him.

Actually, assuming the absense of any particular medical or other rational necessity for actually taking said "drugs," I would assert that "drug dealing" is a decidedly unlibertarian activity, as it basically comes down to extracting profit by destroying individual free will (the essense of libertarianism) via the mechanism of addiction. I don't oppose statist prohibition because I think people should be free to do drugs, but simply because I fear the state.

Actually, assuming the absense of any particular medical or other rational necessity for actually taking said "drugs," I would assert that "drug dealing" is a decidedly unlibertarian activity, as it basically comes down to extracting profit by destroying individual free will (the essense of libertarianism) via the mechanism of addiction. I don't oppose statist prohibition because I think people should be free to do drugs, but simply because I fear the state.

I oppose statist prohibition because I believe people should be free to do drugs.

I would guess that most libertarians follow my line of thinking, rather than yours.

Actually, it doesn't really say anything at all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization)

it was a joke?

Actually, assuming the absense of any particular medical or other rational necessity for actually taking said "drugs," I would assert that "drug dealing" is a decidedly unlibertarian activity, as it basically comes down to extracting profit by destroying individual free will (the essense of libertarianism) via the mechanism of addiction. I don't oppose statist prohibition because I think people should be free to do drugs, but simply because I fear the state.

That rests on the notion that freedom can somehow be "coerced," a notion that is incoherent and contradictory.

Shit, what do I do with this stuff? Ahh, fuck it. Weed going, for cheap!

I oppose statist prohibition because I believe people should be free to do drugs.


Well, ultimately, the result of either justification is the same. My refusal to recognize this "freedom" would manifest itself as, at most, a private refusal to associate myself with particular individuals (as well as encouragement of others to do the same).


I would guess that most libertarians follow my line of thinking, rather than yours.

Which is unfortunate, as I fail to see how "freedom" has any meaning if that which allows me to be free is made a slave to chemical addiction. At least, I tire of the idea, often put forward by prohibition types, that to be anti-prohibition is to be pro-drug. (edit: and at any rate, the number of adherents to an idea has no bearing as to whether that idea is actually correct.)

DHomme, I need a favour from you.

That rests on the notion that freedom can somehow be "coerced," a notion that is incoherent and contradictory.

Please explain further. I would assert that a drug dealer is indeed engaging in coercive behavior when purposefully providing access to an addictive substance; one's original decision to take up a drug, assuming no pre-existing addiction, is indeed completely free. Each interaction with the drug dealer after that point, after an addiction is established, is no longer completely free. (edit: my addiction need not necessarily harm anyone other than myself, so statist intervention is not justified; I am completely free in that sense. This does not necessarily mean, however, that my "choice" to continue in the addictive behavior is made freely).

Please explain further. I would assert that a drug dealer is indeed engaging in coercive behavior when purposefully providing access to an addictive substance; one's original decision to take up a drug, assuming no pre-existing addiction, is indeed completely free. Each interaction with the drug dealer after that point, after an addiction is established, is no longer completely free.

As I see it, the self-deprivation of freedom is a legitimate expression of freedom. The extreme desire for the drug caused by the addiction might be considered coercion, but since it was willingly accepted, the drug dealer is hardly at fault (unless she has distorted the facts to encourage consumption.)

(edit: my addiction need not necessarily harm anyone other than myself, so statist intervention is not justified; I am completely free in that sense. This does not necessarily mean, however, that my "choice" to continue in the addictive behavior is made freely).

We agree here.

Please explain further. I would assert that a drug dealer is indeed engaging in coercive behavior when purposefully providing access to an addictive substance; one's original decision to take up a drug, assuming no pre-existing addiction, is indeed completely free. Each interaction with the drug dealer after that point, after an addiction is established, is no longer completely free. (edit: my addiction need not necessarily harm anyone other than myself, so statist intervention is not justified; I am completely free in that sense. This does not necessarily mean, however, that my "choice" to continue in the addictive behavior is made freely).

In what way is being provided access to something, which you may or may not of your own free will, partake or use coercive? As you say, your initial decision is a free one, and as a libertarian holds that they accept responsibility for their actions, then the later interactions with the draug dealer are the responsibility of the drug user due to that first free action.

No, your choice to continue in an addiction is not a completely free one (else it is not an addiction), but the responsibility for that addiction and state of affairs rests solely and completely with you as a free individual.

Come to think of it, i'm not sure I know any in person. The freemarketeers (that'd be an awesome name for a three musketeers parody) over here are usually socially conservatives as well.

Come to think of it, i'm not sure I know any in person. The freemarketeers (that'd be an awesome name for a three musketeers parody) over here are usually socially conservatives as well.

Here, in Brazil, it is difficult to get people to believe that you are a free marketeer, but not a supporter of the military dictatorships. Duh.

Here, in Brazil, it is difficult to get people to believe that you are a free marketeer, but not a supporter of the military dictatorships. Duh.

I guess its the same as being a socialist in the west. :p

In what way is being provided access to something, which you may or may not of your own free will, partake or use coercive?


Like I said, the choice to begin is completely free, however, the freedom to decide whether to continue is severely reduced. Addiction compels one to engage in behavior regardless of choice. Even if not completely eliminated, one's free will does suffer serious injury. Yes, people can and do choose to quit and become completely free again. People can also throw off despots in revolution and become free; the possibility of escape, however, does not mean one should toy with falling into despotism in the first place.

(edit: and the relationship with the drug dealer is coercive because one of the parties to the relationship does not enjoy the full use of their free will. Thus, the "freedom" in this "free" association is severely reduced, if not eliminated)

Like I said, the choice to begin is completely free, however, the freedom to decide whether to continue is severely reduced. Addiction compels one to engage in behavior regardless of choice. Even if not completely eliminated, one's free will does suffer serious injury. Yes, people can and do choose to quit and become completely free again. People can also throw off despots in revolution and become free; the possibility of escape, however, does not mean one should toy with falling into despotism in the first place.

No one here is recommending that others should toy with falling prey to addiction. However, a Libertarian position is that if someone does want to take this risk, then it is their choice to do so.

Addiction does not compel you to do anything, it simply makes it very unpleasant to not do so. (I am an ex heavy smoker - I know what it means to be addicted.)

The point you are not addressing is the one of the responsibility for the behaviour. Libertarianism is about the individual being responsible for him or her self. Becoming addicted is no loss of liberty in this respect, so long as the responsibility for this addiction is placed where it belongs, on the individual who took the drugs.

Freedom, in this case is the freedom to be addicted (or not), if that is what you choose. It is not, and never should be freedom from the risk of addiction.

I'm a libertarian, and I wouldn't tolerate a drug dealer in my midsts. I'd beat him half to death and send his bloody pulp carase to the nearest police station. I'd rather conform to the state then ignore someone abusing the libertarian philosophy..

Mindyou, my libertarian ideal is simple, which explains free enterprise and social liberalism alike..

The state is incompetant, they can't even pave roads. Don't expect them to be able to govern you and your neighbor like they need to. Govern you and them yourself.

Capitalism shows who among us is better suited for leadership position, capitalism is just a means of showing off our skills and giving us a stable way to survive. It's the natural order of things, use your skills to survive, or think of some kindof survival plan. Or starve. I don't care.

The extreme desire for the drug caused by the addiction might be considered coercion, but since it was willingly accepted, the drug dealer is hardly at fault (unless she has distorted the facts to encourage consumption.)


Only the transaction(s) that occured before addiction occurs are "willingly accepted." The way I see it, a "free association" is free if the parties involved enjoy the full benefit of their free will. The drug addict does not so enjoy the full benefit of his or her free will. As such, the association is no longer free. That the dealer takes advantage of this non-free association for his or her own gain only make the offense that much worse.

No one here is recommending that others should toy with falling prey to addiction.


Of course.


Addiction does not compel you to do anything, it simply makes it very unpleasant to not do so. (I am an ex heavy smoker - I know what it means to be addicted.)


My understanding is that "addiction" constitutes a psychological compulsion to engage in a particular behavior, regardless of the real harm said behavior causes to self or others; thus addiction is necessarily irrational in nature. At any rate, I would think that the desire to resolve "very unpleasant" feelings would make it extremely likely that an individual would seek the addictive behavior for relief. No, one doesn't have to, but the compulsion to do so is still strong. (edit: likewise, I don't have to do what a man holding a gun to my head says, but holding a gun to my head to make me do something is still coercive).


Freedom, in this case is the freedom to be addicted (or not), if that is what you choose. It is not, and never should be freedom from the risk of addiction.

But "freedom from" is rejected because it is typically intrepreted as meaning "as enforced by the state." This need not necessarily be the case. I would expect the individual libertarian to enforce his own "freedom from" drug use, as well as that of others via non-coercive means (education, discussion, persuasion), simply to maintain consistancy with his or her own stated beliefs.

I think people should be free to become addicted however drug dealers should be held partially responsible for drug related crime. Like paying a fine when money is stolen to buy drugs.

And is there anything wrong with responsible adults owning automatic weapons?

I think people should be free to become addicted however drug dealers should be held partially responsible for drug related crime. Like paying a fine when money is stolen to buy drugs.
That's not enough dude, I'm against drugs not because of the act itself, but cause of what can be expected from it.

Ok, immagine this; in a free market people can sell drugs right?

If you're willing to suck a dick for heroine money, you're pretty much a slave to the trade..

So bassicaly, drug dealers would control the market, they'd use thier drugatic slaves to spread thier seed and completely dominate the market. Eventualy, the entire industry, no matter what it is, would be drug dealers, because drug dealers would have the money to be able to buy everybody out.

Therfore I cannot allow a drug dealer to deal, for the simple fact that well, have you ever read A Brave New World? That's precisely why I don't vote democrat.

A safe market is a free market.

I'm a libertarian, and I wouldn't tolerate a drug dealer in my midsts. I'd beat him half to death and send his bloody pulp carase to the nearest police station. I'd rather conform to the state then ignore someone abusing the libertarian philosophy..


Why?

Is this drug dealer making you do anything? Is he or she making anyone do anything? What happened to the freedom of choice of the customer? If I want to buy drugs, who are you to say I must not?

You are not a libertarian (with a small l) as
1) it appears that you wish to regulate what I can do to myself.
2) You are pushing your rights beyond the end of the dealer's nose.

It is not an abuse of the libertarian philosophy to sell drugs. It is an abuse to want to restrict the choices available to me to just those that you approve of.

Prohibiting drugs doesn't work completely in any country. In my high school, the government anti-drug propaganda ranges from irrelevant to mildly comical. Despite police arresting dealers during school hours and busting deals, drug trade and use continues to thrive. People crack jokes about their own illegal drug use in front of teachers. I watched a kid snort a line of coke off his desk in plain view of a teacher during class. My school is certainly not the worst in the area. Why try to control what you never can?

Is this drug dealer making you do anything? Is he or she making anyone do anything? What happened to the freedom of choice of the customer? If I want to buy drugs, who are you to say I must not?
That's not the point, what are you? Fourteen?

The drug dealer will control you later after he's gotten you hooked and made you his puppet. Thereby he will control society at large, and control the market, and thus completely dominate. So eventualy, you won't have freedoms. If you really cared about your freedoms, you'd understand the danger of drugs and the detrimental effects it'd have on your mind and thus would have on your liberties. If you truly valued your freedom, you wouldn't throw it away over something so useless as drugs.

You are not a libertarian (with a small l) as
1) it appears that you wish to regulate what I can do to myself.
2) You are pushing your rights beyond the end of the dealer's nose.
1) Cause I don't care about you, I care about myself. You're entitled to buy the drugs, I'm entitled to get my gun and shoot you two if I see both of you doing dirty buisness. I have to think about the well-being of myself and my loved ones. I could really give a crap about you or the dealer.

2) And the dealer will push my rights ironicaly with nose-candy. Even if I don't take drugs, he'll control the market, so I'll be jobless anyway. He probably would cleverly add cocaine in the food anyway like Cococola use to do is the 30s.. So yes, he's raping my rights, and I have a right to defend myself. And even I didn't, I would anyway. Cause I'm a real libertarian. Not some punk kid who wants to be able to do things mommy and daddy told him not too.

It is not an abuse of the libertarian philosophy to sell drugs. It is an abuse to want to restrict the choices available to me to just those that you approve of.
Clearly if you do not understand you do not deserve the liberty you've been bestowed upon with at birth. It is the strong, the smart, the lucky, and the inherited who have freedom. And even the two latter will eventualy lose it unless they have a bit of the former.. Your pipedream for everyone to be free and happy is not only insane, but precisely what neo-liberals spew from thier toxic mouths. And that's what's ruining this country.

That's right, for the first time in my life I met, live in person, a diehard freemarket capitalist and social liberal. I've never encountered one of these in England ever as I think they're quite a small group round here. More often than not anyone over here who's rightwing is also socially conservative.

He was a very nice guy to be fair. Although he has just started drug dealing. Haha, says somethin about what kind of people support free markets.

well then i have been a libertarian for years..lol.

actually i am a capitalist free marketeer,and believe in a bare minimum of government,and with a dash of social liberalism..real consevative ideals with the economy and government(small)yet very liberal(again..with the true ideals in mind)
basically do whatever the hell you want till you encroach on another's rights to freedom and the right to pursue happiness.

In what way is being provided access to something, which you may or may not of your own free will, partake or use coercive? As you say, your initial decision is a free one, and as a libertarian holds that they accept responsibility for their actions, then the later interactions with the draug dealer are the responsibility of the drug user due to that first free action.

No, your choice to continue in an addiction is not a completely free one (else it is not an addiction), but the responsibility for that addiction and state of affairs rests solely and completely with you as a free individual.

perfectly put!

My understanding is that "addiction" constitutes a psychological compulsion to engage in a particular behavior, regardless of the real harm said behavior causes to self or others; thus addiction is necessarily irrational in nature.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending upon your personal views, people are irrational. We do things because we want to, not because it is the rational thing to do. (We are not Spock or Data.) Now the question is whether we should be allowed to do as we desire, or whether we should be limited in the options available to only those that are not excessively damaging to ourselves. The libertarian position is that,so long as it harms no one other than ourself, we should be free to do as we wish. This includes being addicted to drugs, if we so choose.

At any rate, I would think that the desire to resolve "very unpleasant" feelings would make it extremely likely that an individual would seek the addictive behavior for relief. No, one doesn't have to, but the compulsion to do so is still strong. (edit: likewise, I don't have to do what a man holding a gun to my head says, but holding a gun to my head to make me do something is still coercive).
A very bad analogy. The drug dealer is not holding the syringe to my vein (or whatever). He is simply selling a product that I can buy if I wish - the same as sugar or alcohol, tobacco or caffeine. That these products are addictive is a matter of caveat emptor. My risk if I choose to use them.

A question - have you ever been addicted to anything - legal or otherwise - and then broken the addiction?

It is a matter of desire, of choice. Addiction does not remove freedom of choice in any way, not even in the minimal sense that your man holding the gun is doing. Addiction is just a factor in play when you decide what you want to do. The same way that a preference for orange juice to apple juice is a factor. I quit smoking because I wanted to. I quit first time, without patches, or gum etc. I know many people who have attempted to quit and failed, but in each case they were not quitting because they wanted to; they were quitting because they they thought they ought to. A big difference. Freedom of choice, personal genuine choice, is not removed by addiction.



But "freedom from" is rejected because it is typically intrepreted as meaning "as enforced by the state." This need not necessarily be the case. I would expect the individual libertarian to enforce his own "freedom from" drug use, as well as that of others via non-coercive means (education, discussion, persuasion), simply to maintain consistancy with his or her own stated beliefs.

No. Freedom 'from' is rejected because it is not freedom - it is limitation and restriction. It matters not is this comes from the state or 'morality'. The libertarian has no obligation to avoid addiction due to his stated beliefs. Your opinion that he has such an obligation derives from the incorrect presumption that addiction removes freedom, it does not - as I have argued above. Additionally, if he were to avoid addiction on your grounds he is being contradictory anyway, as he is denying himself the freedom to be addicted, which his stated beliefs require that he has as a possibility.

Only the transaction(s) that occured before addiction occurs are "willingly accepted." The way I see it, a "free association" is free if the parties involved enjoy the full benefit of their free will. The drug addict does not so enjoy the full benefit of his or her free will. As such, the association is no longer free. That the dealer takes advantage of this non-free association for his or her own gain only make the offense that much worse.

But the drug user made the initial choice; she is responsible for the results. All the drug dealer is doing is satisfying her need, the result of her own choices.

I'm a libertarian, and I wouldn't tolerate a drug dealer in my midsts. I'd beat him half to death and send his bloody pulp carase to the nearest police station. I'd rather conform to the state then ignore someone abusing the libertarian philosophy..

Mindyou, my libertarian ideal is simple, which explains free enterprise and social liberalism alike..

The state is incompetant, they can't even pave roads. Don't expect them to be able to govern you and your neighbor like they need to. Govern you and them yourself.



Capitalism shows who among us is better suited for leadership position, capitalism is just a means of showing off our skills and giving us a stable way to survive. It's the natural order of things, use your skills to survive, or think of some kindof survival plan. Or starve. I don't care.

you sir..are no libertarian...lol..

you come across more as a fundie forcing your beliefs on others thathave no effect on your life...
tell me how my brother a thousand miles away smoking a joint affects you in any way...and for the record,i dont do drugs or smoke weed.

you are the opposite of a libertarian,you would be more comfortable as a fascist.

you know..the whole if the do something "i" dont like,i will beat them to death.

your an ass.

That's not the point, what are you? Fourteen?
Nice start. Ad hominem. No I am a good deal older than that (more than 3 times older).

And it is the point. Libertarianism is about individual freedom being maximized. You don't have to buy the drugs, but you have no right to stop others from doing so, if they so wish.

The drug dealer will control you later after he's gotten you hooked and made you his puppet.
Stop presuming that this is under the existing set of laws. If there were no illegal drugs, how does one dealer control the buyers. They simply go to another one. Free market economics. Or are you a puppet of your local supermarket, because they provide you with the things that you need?

Thereby he will control society at large, and control the market, and thus completely dominate. So eventualy, you won't have freedoms. If you really cared about your freedoms, you'd understand the danger of drugs and the detrimental effects it'd have on your mind and thus would have on your liberties. If you truly valued your freedom, you wouldn't throw it away over something so useless as drugs.
This entire passage is dependent on the false assumption pointed out above. But whether drugs are useless or not is a personal value judgement. You can make it for you, you can not make it for others.


1) Cause I don't care about you, I care about myself. You're entitled to buy the drugs, I'm entitled to get my gun and shoot you two if I see both of you doing dirty buisness. I have to think about the well-being of myself and my loved ones. I could really give a crap about you or the dealer.
You are not, as I said, a libertarian then. The basic tennet of libertarianism is that my freedoms end at the other guy's nose. You don't hold that to be true, you are not a libertarian. Simple really.

2) And the dealer will push my rights ironicaly with nose-candy. Even if I don't take drugs, he'll control the market, so I'll be jobless anyway. He probably would cleverly add cocaine in the food anyway like Cococola use to do is the 30s.. So yes, he's raping my rights, and I have a right to defend myself. And even I didn't, I would anyway. Cause I'm a real libertarian. Not some punk kid who wants to be able to do things mommy and daddy told him not too.
You are not. You are a troll I guess.


Clearly if you do not understand you do not deserve the liberty you've been bestowed upon with at birth. It is the strong, the smart, the lucky, and the inherited who have freedom. And even the two latter will eventualy lose it unless they have a bit of the former.. Your pipedream for everyone to be free and happy is not only insane, but precisely what neo-liberals spew from thier toxic mouths. And that's what's ruining this country.
What country? I am not in the USA.

But you have said something worth while. It is the strong, the smart, and the lucky (I include inheritence in luck) who can be free. However the only ones that can keep their freedom are the smart ones. (The strong but stupid become slaves way too quickly and luck always runs out).
My dream is not for everyone to be free and happy, just for everyone to be free. Happiness is to be your responsibility to yourself. If you are not happy then blame yourself - it is no one elses fault. Libertarianism is not a utopian image, under a libertarian system the majority of the dull, stupid, slow, dependent mass of humanity will suffer. This may include me. However if I am to suffer, I want it to be of my doing, not to be imposed on me by others.

Perhaps you can drop the personal attacks, they don't help your case.

tell me how my brother a thousand miles away smoking a joint affects you in any way...and for the record,i dont do drugs or smoke weed.
Halfbaked said it best.

"Marijunna's not a drug, did you ever suck a guy's dick for marijunna?"
"Nope.. can't say I have.."
"Didn't think so.."

you are the opposite of a libertarian,you would be more comfortable as a fascist.
Wrong, you're the fascist, a fascist in libertarian's clothing. You know how I know this? Because I use to be a fascist. And it disgusted me how thier most clever ploy was to convince the people they were looking out for their interests. "Freedom!" they cry while taking it all away.. it's a simple tactic and is used quite often. That's how books like A Brave New World get ridden. And it disgusted me so I gaveup on fascism. I may be a bully, but I have my princaples. Hense "the party of princaples".

you know..the whole if the do something "i" dont like,i will beat them to death.

your an ass.
Thankyou for notcing, maybe you'll become one too. Or a democratic-fascist, either way it makes no differance to me. Can't complain about the destroyed..

Halfbaked said it best.

"Marijuana's not a drug, did you ever suck a guy's dick for marijuana?"
"Nope.. can't say I have.."
"Didn't think so.."


Wrong, you're the fascist, a fascist in libertarian's clothing. You know how I know this? Because I use to be a fascist. And it disgusted me how thier most clever ploy was to convince the people they were looking out for their interests. "Freedom!" they cry while taking it all away.. it's a simple tactic and is used quite often. That's how books like A Brave New World get written. And it disgusted me so I gaveup on fascism. I may be a bully, but I have my principles. Hense "the party of principles".


Thankyou for notcing, maybe you'll become one too. Or a democratic-fascist, either way it makes no differance to me. Can't complain about the destroyed..
I'm happy to deliver to you my own brand of fascism, in the form of corrections of spelling and grammar.

I suppose it's interesting that you hadn't actually met a libertarian in real life. I guess the problem with meeting one of us in person is that we're all on the internet.

All my friends are Libs and none of them do drugs. I think we all just love capitalism.

I suppose it's interesting that you hadn't actually met a libertarian in real life. I guess the problem with meeting one of us in person is that we're all on the internet.
Haha, good point. I'm a libertarian, but I've only met one other libertarian in real life.

Haha, good point. I'm a libertarian, but I've only met one other libertarian in real life.
Yeah, the only other lib I've met in rl is my twin brother and he's the one that converted me to libertarianism.

1) Cause I don't care about you, I care about myself. You're entitled to buy the drugs, I'm entitled to get my gun and shoot you two if I see both of you doing dirty buisness. I have to think about the well-being of myself and my loved ones. I could really give a crap about you or the dealerBy this...er...logic, I or any other communist could say that we don't care about you, we care about ourselves. You're entitled to restrict us from using your land, we're entitled to get out our guns and shoot you for being a dirty capitalist. We have to think about the well-being of ourselves and our loved ones. We could really give a crap about you.

See how ridiculous you sound?

I am one.
I found out one of my friends from high school became one.
And one of my self-proclaimed communist friends took a political quiz and wound up being Libertarian, haha. I knew it all along.

And one of my self-proclaimed communist friends took a political quiz and wound up being Libertarian, haha. I knew it all along.Was it "The World's Smallest Political Test"?

Was it "The World's Smallest Political Test"?

I'm not sure. I know a lot of people think that test is 'biased'. But in her case, we're very close and even though she pretends to be a commie, I can tell her principles are closer to libertarianism than communism. She just didn't have a term for her particular political stance until now.

I'm not sure. I know a lot of people think that test is 'biased'. But in her case, we're very close and even though she pretends to be a commie, I can tell her principles are closer to libertarianism than communism. She just didn't have a term for her particular political stance until now.Is she a libertarian communist?

Is she a libertarian communist?

Well, if we're going to be that nitpicky, she's very liberal socially, but is leaning more towards free markets economically. She's got the Robin Hood syndrome but as we got older, she realized it need not be the government that plays Robin Hood. (Same thing happened to me but a few years earlier)

DHomme, I need a favour from you.

Yes, darling?

By this...er...logic, I or any other communist could say that we don't care about you, we care about ourselves. You're entitled to restrict us from using your land, we're entitled to get out our guns and shoot you for being a dirty capitalist. We have to think about the well-being of ourselves and our loved ones. We could really give a crap about you.

See how ridiculous you sound?
No, I don't, capitalism vs communism would finnaly come down to a fair fight. Who can draw thier gun the quickest, though I'm sure my gun would kill you where as your gun would just hurt me alot. Lousy infriror state produced arms..:p

You're a communist, whatever happend to Stalin's advise?
Death solves all problems--no man, no problem.

No, I don't, capitalism vs communism would finnaly come down to a fair fight. Who can draw thier gun the quickest, though I'm sure my gun would kill you where as your gun would just hurt me alot. Lousy infriror state produced arms..:p There's no reason communist arms would inherently be inferior. Also, perhaps we'll get our arms from a worker owned co-op competing in the market?

You're a communist, whatever happend to Stalin's advise?Why should I be concerned with the advice of someone who wasn't a communist?

Stalin was not a communist?!:rolleyes:

Hell, I know another one of his quotes where he grossly insults the free market.

Capitalists will sell us the rope we use to hang them.

Hell, I know another one of his quotes where he grossly insults the free market.

Thats a Lenin quote, not a Stalin product.

Thats a Lenin quote, not a Stalin product.
Whatever, Lenin, Stalin, Mark, Che. All emos who don't know how to survive in the free market and apparently don't know how to shave..

Whatever, Lenin, Stalin, Mark, Che. All emos who don't know how to survive in the free market and apparently don't know how to shave..
I never knew they were emo :eek:

Whatever, Lenin, Stalin, Mark, Che. All emos who don't know how to survive in the free market and apparently don't know how to shave..

Wow, calling people emo. That helps your political point.

Wow, calling people emo. That helps your political point.
I think Che's the only one who could pass as emo. Just go into any Hot Topic store and there's almost definitely the T-shirts w/Che's face on them and the 'Che Guevara Revolucion!' solgan :p

That's right, for the first time in my life I met, live in person, a diehard freemarket capitalist and social liberal. I've never encountered one of these in England ever as I think they're quite a small group round here. More often than not anyone over here who's rightwing is also socially conservative.

He was a very nice guy to be fair. Although he has just started drug dealing. Haha, says somethin about what kind of people support free markets.
What’s wrong with drug dealing? Just providing a product.

What’s wrong with drug dealing?

Are you honestly arguing that under current conditions, drug dealers are doing nothing wrong? I have no problem with the use, buying, selling production or creation of drugs, but drug dealers will be willing to use violence to pursue money, and even for control of one area. They do plenty wrong.

Are you honestly arguing that under current conditions, drug dealers are doing nothing wrong? I have no problem with the use, buying, selling production or creation of drugs, but drug dealers will be willing to use violence to pursue money, and even for control of one area. They do plenty wrong.

You make them sound nearly as bad as our politicians. :p

Drug dealers are only willing to use violence as they are already involved in illegal activity. They can not exactly set up a retail chain "High way" to shift their product. If drugs were not illegal there would be as much violence in the drug trade as there is in current liquor retailing in the USA. (Compared to what there was during the prohibition.)

What’s wrong with drug dealing? Just providing a product.Is that a joke? There was a debate about that earlier in this topic, you know.

You make them sound nearly as bad as our politicians. :p

Drug dealers are only willing to use violence as they are already involved in illegal activity. They can not exactly set up a retail chain "High way" to shift their product. If drugs were not illegal there would be as much violence in the drug trade as there is in current liquor retailing in the USA. (Compared to what there was during the prohibition.)

Thats exactly what I was saying, so him becoming a drug dealer now involves the use of violence while if it was legal he would not. However it is not legal, so violence and brutality inevitably follow, making it wrong.

Thats exactly what I was saying, so him becoming a drug dealer now involves the use of violence while if it was legal he would not. However it is not legal, so violence and brutality inevitably follow, making it wrong.
That's a logical error.

There is currently an incentive for him to be violent and generally a big jerk, but it's not a necessary characteristic of drug dealers.

That's a logical error.

There is currently an incentive for him to be violent and generally a big jerk, but it's not a necessary characteristic of drug dealers.
exactly im saying its wrong now but it wouldnt be wrong if it was legal as he wouldnt be forced to use violence.

Well, ultimately, the result of either justification is the same. My refusal to recognize this "freedom" would manifest itself as, at most, a private refusal to associate myself with particular individuals (as well as encouragement of others to do the same).

I just think that addiction is not the ultimate result of drug use, nor do I see drugs as the only addiction that can harm you or take away your freedom.

Which is unfortunate, as I fail to see how "freedom" has any meaning if that which allows me to be free is made a slave to chemical addiction.

Like I said before being a slave to chemical addiction is a risk of drug use, not a definite outcome.

(edit: and at any rate, the number of adherents to an idea has no bearing as to whether that idea is actually correct.)

I never claimed it was.

I just meant that the majority of libertarians oppose prohibition as a matter of freedom to treat one's own body as one likes. If that is the case, then the libertarian from the original post would seem to be a practicing libertarian.

Thats exactly what I was saying, so him becoming a drug dealer now involves the use of violence while if it was legal he would not. However it is not legal, so violence and brutality inevitably follow, making it wrong.

The violence and the brutality are wrong. I agree with that.

That these inevitably follow from drug dealing under the current legal regime is not so clear, but I will accept it as posited for the purposes of this argument.

What does not follow from this is that drug dealing in itself is what is wrong. It can equally follow that our laws are wrong.

Something is wrong, we agree on that. I claim it is the prohibitive laws that are wrong, not the drug dealing. The violence and brutality would not be consequences of drug dealing if the laws were different. Thus, from my perspective, the cause of the violence and brutality is not and cannot be the drug dealing, if this activity could continue without these consequences. The cause has to lie elsewhere. If you look at the correlations, you will see that violence and brutality in a commercial area are strongly correlated with the existence of prohibitive legislation in that area, and with nothing else. Thus what is wrong is the law. I rest my case.

The violence and the brutality are wrong. I agree with that.

That these inevitably follow from drug dealing under the current legal regime is not so clear, but I will accept it as posited for the purposes of this argument.

What does not follow from this is that drug dealing in itself is what is wrong. It can equally follow that our laws are wrong.

Something is wrong, we agree on that. I claim it is the prohibitive laws that are wrong, not the drug dealing. The violence and brutality would not be consequences of drug dealing if the laws were different. Thus, from my perspective, the cause of the violence and brutality is not and cannot be the drug dealing, if this activity could continue without these consequences. The cause has to lie elsewhere. If you look at the correlations, you will see that violence and brutality in a commercial area are strongly correlated with the existence of prohibitive legislation in that area, and with nothing else. Thus what is wrong is the law. I rest my case.

Thats what Im saying. If it wasnt a prohibited industry he wouldnt have to use violence, so i wouldnt have so much of a problem with it. But its not a prohibited industry, so he will have to use violence, so there is something wrong with what hes doing. However, if drugs were legal it WOULD be a completely different question, but drugs aren't legal so under the current situation it is wrong.

I swear I've posted this same point like 4 times and each time somebody agrees with me in the form of argument.

Thats what Im saying. If it wasnt a prohibited industry he wouldnt have to use violence, so i wouldnt have so much of a problem with it. But its not a prohibited industry, so he will have to use violence, so there is something wrong with what hes doing. However, if drugs were legal it WOULD be a completely different question, but drugs aren't legal so under the current situation it is wrong.

I swear I've posted this same point like 4 times and each time somebody agrees with me in the form of argument.

You keep missing the point though. You keep saying that drug dealing is wrong. It is not. It is the laws that are wrong.

exactly im saying its wrong now but it wouldnt be wrong if it was legal as he wouldnt be forced to use violence.
So you're disagreeing with me and claiming that violence is currently a necessary aspect of being a drug dealer.

Yes, darling?
I need (seriously) near 1,000 Communist Manifestos.

I need (seriously) near 1,000 Communist Manifestos.

What for?

Edit: If you really are serious, print a thousand copies of this (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html).

What for?

I'm seriously wondering that myself...:confused:

What for?

Edit: If you really are serious, print a thousand copies of this (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html).
Each year the Gideons stand near my school and pass out Bibles. When they come this year, I want to pass out Communist Manifestos.

Each year the Gideons stand near my school and pass out Bibles. When they come this year, I want to pass out Communist Manifestos.

I wonder if the Gideons would be willing to trade? Maybe, you could swap the Manifestos for the Bibles and sell them for a profit...

Each year the Gideons stand near my school and pass out Bibles. When they come this year, I want to pass out Communist Manifestos.

Hmm. I would advise something more efficient (and more anti-God): print a thousand copies of Mikhail Bakunin's God and the State, which is shorter.

If Mikhail Bakunin isn't famous enough for your purposes, print out a thousand copies of a Communist propaganda flyer featuring various anti-religious quotes.

Hmm. I would advise something more efficient (and more anti-God): print a thousand copies of Mikhail Bakunin's God and the State, which is shorter.

If Mikhail Bakunin isn't famous enough for your purposes, print out a thousand copies of a Communist propaganda flyer featuring various anti-religious quotes.
Most people don't know who he is, but a flyer sounds fantastic.

Most people don't know who he is, but a flyer sounds fantastic.

Cheaper to run off and you can print them in some obnoxious color like hot pink or lime green.

Most people don't know who he is, but a flyer sounds fantastic.

Do a search over at the Marxists Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org/) (which, weirdly, also includes Bakunin and other non-Marxist radical leftists.) There are lots of stuff from Lenin on the subject, and there's always the "opiate of the masses" one from Marx.

-snip-


Did you punch him in the face?:p

You keep missing the point though. You keep saying that drug dealing is wrong. It is not. It is the laws that are wrong.
The laws are wrong and the action in and of itself, in the current situation, is also wrong.

The laws are wrong and the action in and of itself, in the current situation, is also wrong.

bleh im a libertarian and i think they should just legalize everything.