[jbock13]

PA, I think you know what I meant. I'm not an anarchist, you can ask the more ardent anarchists on here about that.

Besides, when marijuana is decriminalized we won't have to worry about those kinds of drug deals anymore. At this point I think it's the only drug that should be legalized though, so I admit it would still leave a black market, but not nearly as powerful without it.

For the record, I have never smoked pot, and never will. It just pains me to see youths get locked up for non-violent offenses. Having said that, if an assault or coercion is committed, therefore the police can take care of that, punishing the offender.

Violence is a crime because it disrupts the natural order of civil society. Getting pulled over for doing 61 in a 55 does not

[El Scorcho]

Just because I believe a behavior is a sin, does not give me a moral high ground to stamp out someone's personal behavior.

Cool. just remember that next time you rip somebody off when selling them pot, and they come to your house with what may or may not be a real gun and take a couple hundy off you.

When you call 911, and I show up and then you ask me to press charges of armed robbery and agg assault- I'm going to remind you that just because I believe a behavior is a sin, does not give me a moral high ground to stamp out someone's personal behavior.

Life will be much easier without all that pesky crimes code and vehicle code enforcement.

Your argument would make sense if the criminal code and vehicle code was based entirely on morality. Thankfully it is not.

[El Scorcho]

And this, right here, is one of the inherrent problems (if you could consider it that) of "libertarianism". Everyone has their own definition, which is part of the nature of that ideology. And it has evolved, just like most things do.

This doesn't really say anything at all. The same could be said for "conservatism", "liberalism" or any other general name for a political ideology. Fred Phelps has a very different view of "conservative" politics than Mitt Romney does.

Each is united by a core set of values and then there's a spectrum of thinking underneath of that. That's not unique to libertarians.

[Purple Haize]

Besides, when marijuana is decriminalized we won't have to worry about those kinds of drug deals anymore. At this point I think it's the only drug that should be legalized though, so I admit it would still leave a black market, but not nearly as powerful without it.

Do you feel the same way about all drugs? Why should I have to have a prescription from my doctor for Percocet or Lortab? Why did they take Vioxx off the market? Why should I have to wait till 21 to drink 18 to vote and 16 to drive?

[jmdickens]

Besides, when marijuana is decriminalized we won't have to worry about those kinds of drug deals anymore. At this point I think it's the only drug that should be legalized though, so I admit it would still leave a black market, but not nearly as powerful without it.

Do you feel the same way about all drugs? Why should I have to have a prescription from my doctor for Percocet or Lortab? Why did they take Vioxx off the market? Why should I have to wait till 21 to drink 18 to vote and 16 to drive?

Those should all be issued by the state....if the people in Vermont want to allow people to drink alcohol at any age or drive at 20, then so be it. The prescription drug is one of the weirder things to me and i can say that I have no clue as to why we are so delusional to believe that pot is even on the same level as pharmaceutical drugs. I can do so much more damage with a percocet and a forty, than what I could with a joint.....however, doctors prescribe them bc that is what they feel is best for their patient. a private matter that really should not involve the govt.

I do like that question Haize, but i think it would take trial and error to find out the most appropriate action.

[Purple Haize]

Ty. Those are questions that tend not to get asked bc people are hung up on weed. If I recal, Mr Paul mentioned he would do away with the FDA,which covers the regulation of RX drugs. I always wondered why no one followed up with him about it. Again, it Is an agency in DC that needs an over haul, but not sure about it being abolished.

[jbock13]

But how did we ever survive before the FDA? Or the Energy Department? Or god forbid... Housing and Urban Development! The private market regulates itself by quality control. Think of it this way. If you go to Taco Bell and the food tastes great, you'll come back when you're hungry for it again. But if it states bad, and your tacos are cold with ants in your Pepsi, chances are you won't be coming back.

And soon enough, those who had that same experience as you won't come back. The free market thus regulated a product without any government intervention, and the restaurant is out of business.

[Purple Haize]

the history of medicine in the US. I recommend the book The Great Influenza. That will answer some of your questions. Also realize that there are/were plenty of unscrupulous people selling medicine.

[jbock13]

I don't have questions, I have opinions.

I know we all went to school and were taught that all meat had rat droppings on it, and medicine was all phoney until our dear government got involved and shut down those evil, vile corporations and capitalists we call butchers! After all, our textbooks said so! Well, it simply isn't true. Those who got sick from the meat surely wouldn't buy it again would they? Haize my friend you are victim of revisionist history.

Look at medicine and prescription drugs. It's regulated out to wazoo and it isnt any better than it was in the early 20th century.

Did rat droppings on meat occur? Probably. Is anybody forcing you to buy meat with rat droppings? No. That creates an incentive for a private company to keep it sanitized, as consumers would gladly pay more for meat that wouldn't make them sick. It's called the profit motive.

[olldflame]

I don't have questions, I have opinions.

I know we all went to school and were taught that all meat had rat droppings on it, and medicine was all phoney until our dear government got involved and shut down those evil, vile corporations and capitalists we call butchers! After all, our textbooks said so! Well, it simply isn't true. Those who got sick from the meat surely wouldn't buy it again would they? Haize my friend you are victim of revisionist history.

Look at medicine and prescription drugs. It's regulated out to wazoo and it isnt any better than it was in the early 20th century.

Did rat droppings on meat occur? Probably. Is anybody forcing you to buy meat with rat droppings? No. That creates an incentive for a private company to keep it sanitized, as consumers would gladly pay more for meat that wouldn't make them sick. It's called the profit motive.

With one side of your mouth (or keyboard) jbock, you say you are expressing opinions, which you are entitled to. Yet you make rash statements like "medicine is no better than it was in the early 20th century" as though they were facts, with nothing to support them.

Medicine is regulated today because in the early 20th century we were well on the way to becoming a nation of addicts because people were taking, and giving their CHILDREN "patent medicines", laced with opium, as a cure-all for every ill. The stuff was cheap, and when you took it, you "felt better". Of course, it did absolutely nothing to treat your actual illness, and it was highly addictive.

Working in the mental health field for 25 years, I was indeed frustrated by the way FDA regulations contributed to slowing down the availability and increasing the cost of useful new medications, but the fact is today we actually have real medicines to treat real diseases. The system does need an overhaul, but regulation is absolutely needed.

[ALUmnus]

Dickens, how the heck did you jump to theocracy? That is not at all the logical conclusion to what I was saying. And I really have no idea what you mean by "give me an example of when this happened". When what happened?

[LUconn]

Did rat droppings on meat occur? Probably. Is anybody forcing you to buy meat with rat droppings? No. That creates an incentive for a private company to keep it sanitized, as consumers would gladly pay more for meat that wouldn't make them sick. It's called the profit motive.

And all it would take was a few members of your family to die before you'd figure out which brands are clean. This is the problem when people go overboard with being anti-government and anti-regulation. I'd like to minimize government, but at the same time some regulation and social programs are needed. If anybody has seen "The National Parks: America's Best Idea" on PBS, that will soften your opinion on environmentalists, FDR, eminent domain, social projects, etc.

[jbock13]

Well since PBS is owned by the government, I wonder why they would say such kind things about government projects. Hmmmm....

Having said that, its an issue reasonable people can disagree on.

FDR was the 2nd worst president ever. Carter 1st, and Hoover 3rd.

However LUconn, the only way the private market could be manipulated to "kill" people with unsanitary meat would be some huge conspiracy in the big meat industry to kill the very people who buy the meat. You don't really believe a business would think it makes economic sense to kill its customers, do you?

[Purple Haize]

JBock. I agree about the OVER regulation by the FDA but to say drugs are no better now then at the beginning if the 20th century is a bit much. Just look at Penecillan and insulin. I will not argue and say that FDA regulations cause the prices of pharmaceuticals to rise but to say the quality is bad is just not true
I recommend a book called OVERDOSE. It is written by a U of Chicago and Harvard economist and makes great points about why medicine costs so much and how to fix it.

[jbock13]

The reason medicine costs so much are frivolous lawsuits and third party transactions in my opinion.

[BJWilliams]

Frivolous lawsuits have also driven up the price of malpractice insurance (something my dad has to deal with at his own practice...that and having to replace one of his doctors who left)

[LUconn]

I have a difficult time arguing with you jbock. I feel like you can't stay on subject. I never said anything about anybody killing anybody. But if you think a completely unregulated food system wouldn't result in an outbreak of mad cow disease, you're kidding yourself.

[thepostman]

Well since PBS is owned by the government, I wonder why they would say such kind things about government projects. Hmmmm....

You are more of a stereotypical Ron Paul supporter then stereotypical Ron Paul supporters...all these conspiracy theories!! haha

[jbock13]

Well since PBS is owned by the government, I wonder why they would say such kind things about government projects. Hmmmm....

You are more of a stereotypical Ron Paul supporter then stereotypical Ron Paul supporters...all these conspiracy theories!! haha

yeah, can't you tell I've really changed?

[jmdickens]

I do not understand why you would think anything other than freedom is the answer.....by allowing individual liberty, you allow people to do things in a way that can be most honoring to Christ. That means that we can practice our faith without worrying what others will say. At the same time, every other religion, including atheists can do with their lives as they see fit and no one will whine about the other.....what is not to like?

And Dickens, that post is historically ignorant. Human nature cannot allow that to exist

Well, can you give me an example when this happened? Yes, I am serious...

Also, do you prefer the Constantine model instead?

Also, youre arguing that a Christian's sinful human nature will not allow Christians to let others live their lives as they see fit.....this is what you call a theocracy and should never be advocated by a Godly people.....you sound like you should work at LC

Dickens, how the heck did you jump to theocracy? That is not at all the logical conclusion to what I was saying. And I really have no idea what you mean by "give me an example of when this happened". When what happened?

There is our conversation....You said that the idea of practicing your own religion and having your own moral standards as to how one dictates their life is historically ignorant and unable to exist because of human nature.....I simply asked for an example to support your conclusion.

The "jump" to theocracy was an analytical conclusion based on your argument that "to each his own" is impossible. The converse opinion would be that "what I say goes"....Christians want to dominate others. Non-Christians want to dominate Christians. etc...So, I guess if I assume you are a christian, then you want to dominate others with your position...

So, my logical disconnect would be assuming youre an actual Christian.

however, if there was something else you meant by all this, I would love to hear that as well

[ALUmnus]

I do not understand why you would think anything other than freedom is the answer.....by allowing individual liberty, you allow people to do things in a way that can be most honoring to Christ. That means that we can practice our faith without worrying what others will say. At the same time, every other religion, including atheists can do with their lives as they see fit and no one will whine about the other.....what is not to like?

And Dickens, that post is historically ignorant. Human nature cannot allow that to exist

Well, can you give me an example when this happened? Yes, I am serious...

Also, do you prefer the Constantine model instead?

Also, youre arguing that a Christian's sinful human nature will not allow Christians to let others live their lives as they see fit.....this is what you call a theocracy and should never be advocated by a Godly people.....you sound like you should work at LC

Dickens, how the heck did you jump to theocracy? That is not at all the logical conclusion to what I was saying. And I really have no idea what you mean by "give me an example of when this happened". When what happened?

There is our conversation....You said that the idea of practicing your own religion and having your own moral standards as to how one dictates their life is historically ignorant and unable to exist because of human nature.....I simply asked for an example to support your conclusion.

The "jump" to theocracy was an analytical conclusion based on your argument that "to each his own" is impossible. The converse opinion would be that "what I say goes"....Christians want to dominate others. Non-Christians want to dominate Christians. etc...So, I guess if I assume you are a christian, then you want to dominate others with your position...

So, my logical disconnect would be assuming youre an actual Christian.

however, if there was something else you meant by all this, I would love to hear that as well

In short, from Adam to the Second Coming. It's never happened, and never will. Our country came the closest, and you can see how that's eroded. You say "to each his own" and "what I say goes" are converse opinions, but I say that because of human nature, "to each his own" will always lead to "what I say goes", it's inevitable.

[jmdickens]

glad you cleared that up....

well now that you arent going to back up your claim, at least you can take back calling me ignorant. Doubt you will.

[ALUmnus]

glad you cleared that up....

well now that you arent going to back up your claim, at least you can take back calling me ignorant. Doubt you will.

I'm not a lawyer like you, but isn't that trying to prove a negative? I'm supposed to find an example of something that has never happened. That's the point.

[LUconn]

all hail the enlightened one! Surely only ignorance keeps us all from supporting Ron.

[Purple Haize]

This thread is a great example of how unbelievably ignorant so many Christians are. Get a clue, just a single clue about political and legal philosophy before you start spouting off about it. Embarrassing. Really.

I swear some of you would jump up and down for just about anyone as long as their views included opposition to "the gay agenda" and being "pro-life" (just don't actually do anything about abortion).

I agree with that. I also agree that there are different shades f pro life and 'the gay agenda'.