Obama

[grawk]

Why are you so vehemently against enlightened leadership ("fascism")? Failed experiments like National Socialism and Stalinism aren't what I'm talking about.

Because there hasn't been an example of an enlightened leader in quite some time.

[grawk]

As to the suicide question, of fucking course people should be allowed to kill themselves. I'm all for public suicide booths, where highly paid public servants will dispose of your body after providing you with the means and location to off yourself. That's DEFINITELY a positive for society. People getting to check out when they feel like they should, instead of going on to be a drain on society as they stop contributing.

As to paying for drug treatment, I promise paying for drug treatment is cheaper than paying for the crime and punishment that results from the current system.

[Thelonious Monk]

Because there hasn't been an example of an enlightened leader in quite some time.

Already said that in my first post in this thread -- stupid people don't allow functional government to exist. Spiritually enlightened people are out there, they're just suppressed by the modern world, and increasingly low in number. Today's world punishes smart people by making the lowest common denominator the standard of everything. That's why most films / music / books / video games / tranny porn / whatever from the past ## years sucks, too. The void of culturelessness (see: pluralism) doesn't exactly help in those respects, either.

[Dusty Chalk]

As to paying for drug treatment, I promise paying for drug treatment is cheaper than paying for the crime and punishment that results from the current system.

Oh, yeah, that's scientifically valid.

[grawk]

Oh, yeah, that's scientifically valid.

War On Drugs Clock

The U.S. federal government spent over $19 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second. The budget has since been increased by over a billion dollars.

[grawk]

Already said that in my first post in this thread -- stupid people don't allow functional government to exist. Spiritually enlightened people are out there, they're just suppressed by the modern world, and increasingly low in number. Today's world punishes smart people by making the lowest common denominator the standard of everything. That's why most films / music / books / video games / tranny porn / whatever from the past ## years sucks, too. The void of culturelessness (see: pluralism) doesn't exactly help in those respects, either.

Remember, start the trend: end yourself

[Dusty Chalk]

You do realize that those of you who are in favor of suicide could have the same said towards you? I'm not saying it, I won't sink that low, but I'm just pointing out the irony of your verbage.

[grawk]

You do realize that those of you who are in favor of suicide could have the same said towards you? I'm not saying it, I won't sink that low, but I'm just pointing out the irony of your verbage.

I'm in favor of people who are feeling there are too many stupid people in the world taking out the one they're personally responsible for. I think they should have that right. If I ever feel like I take more than I give, I probably will take the same steps.

[aardvark baguette]

What a fun thread.

I've been called a Totalitarian AND a Humanist

I thought you guys didn't like absolutes?

Bill O Riley is my homeboy.

[Thelonious Monk]

What a fun thread.

I've been called a Totalitarian AND a Humanist

I thought you guys didn't like absolutes?

Bill O Riley is my homeboy.

Fascist and totalitarian are the hot new post-Cold War buzzwords, like "nigger-lover" before them. I'm ahead of the curve; after the great collapse of Western society, everybody'll be calling eachother dirty humanist bastards.

[aardvark baguette]

you stated that you held totalitarian ideals, that makes you a totalitarian. sorry.

Supposing I am...does that somehow mean my opinions are no longer valid?

Or is it just merley an observation.

'cause saying someone's opinions are not valid is kinda....fascist.

I'm not saying thats definitely implied in your statement, but I am a little curious.

[slwiser]

Who is John Galt?

[Thelonious Monk]

totalitarian is simply a new word of tyrannical government, not a buzz word at all. and fascism has been around for a long, long time, so it's not either.

now i really think you are trying to be a joker.

I was just implying that it's silly that people throw it around like it's the most insulting of all insults.

America's representative republic is tyrannical, too. Tyranny of the mob.

[aardvark baguette]

of course your opinions are valid, i'm simply disagreeing with you in the strongest terms possible. nothing personal (hate totalitarianism, not the totalitarianist).

OK. That I have no problem with. We are allowed to disagree with each other. Its bound to happen from time to time in society

[aardvark baguette]

:kitty:

I doubt I would be on that side. I feel strongly on certain topics, but its not across-the-board for all issues. For example, I consider myself Republican (**crickets chirping**) but I am in favor of stem cell research, and have a neutral stance on homosexuality. Hell, I even have homosexual friends. There are some issues that make me hate the government. Almost to the point of being a libertarian. So I don't think I really get pigeonholed in any global camp. The issues are too complicated for that.

[saint.panda]

Why are you so vehemently against enlightened leadership ("fascism")? Failed experiments like National Socialism and Stalinism aren't what I'm talking about.

Lol, give one example of a successful experiment.

TM, Read Popper's Open Society and Its Enemies when you have the time do so, or The Road to Serfdom by Hayek (albeit not MECE for explaining the evils of fascism/socialism, it's still an excellent book). Carl Schmitt might be more along the lines of your thinking though. I don't even know where to start with the argument.

---

But I disagree that opposing the legalisation of drugs automatically makes you a totalitarian. Now, what somebody does in his own house, I don't care, but once neighbourhood effects are in play, the government has ample reason to act, to provide security for others (doesn't matter so much for grass, but more for stuff that may make you dangerous to other people). It's not the same as suicide. I know there's this quote by Franklin that says that whoever gives up a bit of freedom for security deserves neither, well that's BS. Security and Freedom are but the flip-side of the same coin. Only a secure state can guarantee healthy freedom for all, as only a truly free state can make security secure and long-lasting. There's no formula of what crosses the line and what not, same with drugs. It's a delicate balance and the exact point of crossing should be the agenda of democratic debates. It's a slow and tiring progress, but that's just how it is.

Recently, economists have come up with a in many cases workable solution of addressing the issue of "the state knows what's better for you" by resorting to "behavioural economics". By default you are put into a certain scheme (e.g. to increase private saving because Americans are apparently unable to save money) and the government automatically takes part of your money each month and add it into your pension fund or whatever fund. However, you have the possibility/freedom to opt out. Statistics and model runs have shown that, although the same freedom principles applies, less people opt out than would otherwise opt in. The difference is only a written application and makes use of human lazy inertia so to speak. The same could be applied to other instances (maybe hard drugs).

And to end a way too long post with a long quote (executive summary of above mentioend book):

Philosophers should consider the fact that the greatest happiness principle can easily be made an excuse for a benevolent dictatorship. We should replace it by a more modest and more realistic principle / the principle that the fight against avoidable misery should be a recognized aim of public policy, while the increase of happiness should be left, in the main, to private initiative.

[aardvark baguette]

Your scary.

I want my mommy

[saint.panda]

legislating public morality is a totalitarian idea. do you think that people who hold totalitarian ideals really aren't totalitarians? i believe in strict constitutional ideals; i would certainly think that doing so makes me a strict constitutionalist.

"Legislating public morality". Not sure what you mean here. And what are strict constitutional ideals?

Thinking that legalising heroin that could potentially lead to more addicts that could lead to dead people makes me totalitarian??

[aardvark baguette]

I think he's referring to my post a few pages back.

[aardvark baguette]

But what about 'mitigating circumstances'?

Is there truly never a time to make any activity or product illegal?

[aardvark baguette]

Interesting. So if the feds allowed all drugs tomorrow, and a state promptly re-outlawed them, you would accept their decision?

[saint.panda]

banning drugs because "it's bad for you" or "it's bad for society" is pushing a set of morals on the citizenry at large. pushing morals for the so-called "public good" is a common tactic by totalitarian regimes in the modern age.

It's not "it's bad for you" or "bad for society". If it were that, I would agree but it's more like "it's bad for the other people that don't take the drugs and might be put at danger from high people, and we have to protect these guys". Now, whether that's the case is a different issue. But if it were true, then banning is absolutely legitimate. Same with cigarettes in restaurants.

[saint.panda]

that is tyranny of the mob. the US was founded on individual liberty; breaching personal freedom is more harmful than protecting the mob.

But isn't freedom of the individual, i.e. the guys that can't do shit about the drug-taking guys, what freedom is all about? I don't see breaching personal freedom and protecting somebody, let's say mob, so black and white.

Don't worry about the cable. I just got my UE 10 Pros today, so I'll have these to play with for a while.

[saint.panda]

the freedom of a person to use drugs is more valid than the freedom of someone to try to prevent another person from taking drugs. personal freedom stops at the tip of your nose, both in terms of making other people do something and preventing other people from doing something..

Nice, I'll think of a reply tomorrow.

[aardvark baguette]

the freedom of a person to use drugs is more valid than the freedom of someone to try to prevent another person from taking drugs.

Based on what drugs are, the danger they cause, and their benefits, I don't think I will ever, ever agree with that statement.

**cliche --But I defend to the death your right to say it.--**/cliche

I see your logic, really I do, but I just view it the opposite way. I think the person not doing drugs takes priority of freedom, however deserving both parties may be.

Lets examine the gains and losses of both. In my scenario, the drug user forfeits his/her right to self medicate with a potentially harmful material. A material that affects one's state of mind, and thus the behavior, motor skills and reaction time of that individual. Due to other freedoms, i.e. drivers license, that person, if allowed to enter that state, would pose a serious threat to others who have not altered their state of mind, motor skills, etc. The non-user gains the added protection from that threat.

In your scenario, the drug user gains the right to inject whatever they want into their body. The non-user loses their right to protection from that threat. In this isolated case, I believe freedom of protection is more important than freedom of choice. It doesn't work universally in all applications for me, but it does in this case.

The only compromise I could see is that a person could be to partake in such substances, so long as they are excluded from society during the effects of said substance. They would have to be in a controlled environment of some sort. But even that is a stretch, as it probably wouldn't work.

Its kind of like gun laws. I think the decision to deny some individuals/groups the right to own fully automatic M-16s is a fair compromise, as it provides others protection from those guns. Just like making drugs illegal, it has not completely removed the threat, but it certainly is hard to get an M-16 these days at the local K-mart.