The U.S. isn't Amsterdam, Lance. There's places it can work, and places it cannot. In a society that is this free, and a country this vast, it would be unmanigable, in my estimation.
Narcotics are not a consumer product, like compact disks or shoes.
Were the people who ran the Underground Railroad doing the right thing? Â It's a very simple question. It also has a very easy, and instructive, answer.
No, there is nothing instructive about the compariosn. I see no morality in fighting for legalized drugs. In fact I see the opposite.
the laws were racist in their inception and the laws continue to be used this way.
No. The drug laws aren't racist unless of course you believe that more minorities use drugs. You just siuad that wasn't true. Just becuase the drug laws may be, in some instances, not enforced evenly across the board doesn't mean the reason they were enacted was because of racism.
And the reason why slavery keeps coming up is because we are talking about laws that are not morally sound. Slavery is the grandaddy of morally unsound laws, so it is a natural case study for the same. You make your first mistake when you equate drug laws with slavery. Drug laws aren't immoral. So everything after your premise is false.  Why? Because it allows one to very clearly see that there are times when people and nations pass entirely unjust, immoral laws that are not worthy of the respect of anyone. Apparently enough people support the drug laws in our democratic society. Aparrently there are enough that respect them. It's also clear that disobedience of such laws was not just a permissible choice, it was the right choice. Creation of those laws, enforcement of them, and living under them to one's own advantage, was the wrong choice. No, it was the right choice.  Â
Oh, people saw it. George Washington saw it. Ben Franklin saw it. This means nothing to me.Lysander Spooner saw it. Tons of others saw that it was immoral for one man to own the life and control the liberty of another. One man isn't in control that is where you make another mistake.Â
And so the proponents resisted, making all sorts of argumentsrationalizations to justify keeping their immoral laws.  Following the mandates of the Constitution I believe to be a moral act. Until the 14 th Amendment was passed slavery was allowed if a state approved it. When people disregard the Constitution then there is no law.  There were two main arguments against ending slavery-- either based on racial hatred, or based on preserving the status quo. Then there is living by the Constitution.  Just as there are two main arguments against ending prohibition -- either based on cultural intolerance and ignorance, or based on preserving the status quo. No, drug laws are moral. You have the right to attempt to change the law. Blacks didn't have that right on the issue of slavery.  You need both, actually, in a world where alcohol is legal and pot is not. Because there is no case to be made for that that is based on morality, social gain, safety, or any of the other things that usually provide bracing for our laws. A democracy can make that choice and for you to attempt to impose your will over the society is an attempt at despotism.
how free is it if you are not free to do what you want with your own body? You are free to petition the legislature to change the law. if you don't get your way it doesn't mean society is unjust.
I'd do it in a heartbeat if they privatized it, no matter how close to retirement I was. I'd still get a better rate of return, it would be mine to do with as I wish, the entire amount would go to my survivors, no matter when I die, and I wouldn't have to choose between what I've earned all my life and what my husband earned all his life when we do start to receive it.
Allow people to invest their SS "contributions" in various investment vehicles of their choice. Allow them to get the FULL benefit of their investments and returns. Allow them to use that money as they see fit and leave it to anyone they want, in any form they want. In other words, let it be under the same rules as, say, 401(k) or IRA accounts.
Allow them to use that money as they see fit and leave it to anyone they want, in any form they want. In other words, let it be under the same rules as, say, 401(k) or IRA accounts
if you treat the SS as any other market investment, then you really will have a SOCIALIST system...but not just socialist in savings, socialist in marketplace ownership The Federal system, with such huge buying power, would begin to own more and more of the market itself.
you wouldn't privatize SS (you can't, it's a social program by it's very nature)...but instead what you would be actually doing is socializing the marketplace...capitalism as we know it would be gone. The market would increasingly be owned by the government.
Marketplace socialism....that's what your "privitize Social Security" would get you.
If we had "privatized" social security, say, 30 years ago, would you care to guess how much of the market the federal government would control by now?
It would only work the way you say if, as the Clinton administration briefly suggested, the federal government controlled where the money would be invested. I'm talking about individuals investing their own money. I understand it works extremely well in Chile.
I'm well aware of that. Not everyone has access to one. I'm talking about fixing Social Security so it isn't such a rip-off and so that people can actually build wealth with it.
you aren't talking about fixing it, you are talking about raiding it to invest in private corporations. It's only "rip-off" is politicians using our monies to finance things other than our social security.
aren't you an American? That's what my passport says.
you have a bank account, bodine, right? what difference does that make?
the bank has your money, right? if I have money in the bank it is because I personally decided to put it there.
is it your money or the bank's money now? This thing you call thinking has got to be hurting you. It certainly isn't doing you much good. The government forces me to pay into SS, I can choose to put money in a bank account or not.
The Great Beast 6/30/04 1:22pm
My uncles buddy has a helicopter I've been up in. It's cool for about 5 minutes, then it's like "You spent how much on this"?
:-)
Actually, it was pretty cool looking at the damage done after a tornado a couple years ago.
Ah, the drop won't hurt ya. It's that sudden stop.
Anyway, I'll leave you guys to serious conversation. Didn't mean to interrupt.
The U.S. isn't Amsterdam, Lance. There's places it can work, and places it cannot. In a society that is this free, and a country this vast, it would be unmanigable, in my estimation.
Narcotics are not a consumer product, like compact disks or shoes.
It's hard to figure how a fan of that movie could support government control of what mind-altering substances people ingest.
In the movie the Government forced people to take drugs.
to mantain a certain perception...to prevent this perception from altering.
how free is it if you are not free to do what you want with your own body?
Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves.
so, let's outlaw people.
<unsubscribing>
I was just playing, Lance.
so, let's outlaw people.
Except for you and I, right?
Were the people who ran the Underground Railroad doing the right thing?
Â
It's a very simple question. It also has a very easy, and instructive, answer.
No, there is nothing instructive about the compariosn. I see no morality in fighting for legalized drugs. In fact I see the opposite.
the laws were racist in their inception and the laws continue to be used this way.
No. The drug laws aren't racist unless of course you believe that more minorities use drugs. You just siuad that wasn't true. Just becuase the drug laws may be, in some instances, not enforced evenly across the board doesn't mean the reason they were enacted was because of racism.
And the reason why slavery keeps coming up is because we are talking about laws that are not morally sound. Slavery is the grandaddy of morally unsound laws, so it is a natural case study for the same. You make your first mistake when you equate drug laws with slavery. Drug laws aren't immoral. So everything after your premise is false.
Â
Why? Because it allows one to very clearly see that there are times when people and nations pass entirely unjust, immoral laws that are not worthy of the respect of anyone. Apparently enough people support the drug laws in our democratic society. Aparrently there are enough that respect them. It's also clear that disobedience of such laws was not just a permissible choice, it was the right choice. Creation of those laws, enforcement of them, and living under them to one's own advantage, was the wrong choice. No, it was the right choice.
 Â
Oh, people saw it. George Washington saw it. Ben Franklin saw it. This means nothing to me.Lysander Spooner saw it. Tons of others saw that it was immoral for one man to own the life and control the liberty of another. One man isn't in control that is where you make another mistake.Â
And so the proponents resisted, making all sorts of
argumentsrationalizations to justify keeping their immoral laws.  Following the mandates of the Constitution I believe to be a moral act. Until the 14 th Amendment was passed slavery was allowed if a state approved it. When people disregard the Constitution then there is no law.ÂÂ
There were two main arguments against ending slavery-- either based on racial hatred, or based on preserving the status quo. Then there is living by the Constitution.Â
Â
Just as there are two main arguments against ending prohibition -- either based on cultural intolerance and ignorance, or based on preserving the status quo. No, drug laws are moral. You have the right to attempt to change the law. Blacks didn't have that right on the issue of slavery.
Â
You need both, actually, in a world where alcohol is legal and pot is not. Because there is no case to be made for that that is based on morality, social gain, safety, or any of the other things that usually provide bracing for our laws. A democracy can make that choice and for you to attempt to impose your will over the society is an attempt at despotism.
how free is it if you are not free to do what you want with your own body? You are free to petition the legislature to change the law. if you don't get your way it doesn't mean society is unjust.
I wonder if Lance is for ending welfare and social security.
Yes, he is, and so am I.
Just as I suspected you are both heartless ogres!
Welfare should be minimal and SS should be privatized.
you go first
I wouldn't mind SS being privatized. I'd make a hell of a lot better return.
However, I don't mind leaving some money in SS either. I see it as a back-up for my real retirement.
I'd do it in a heartbeat if they privatized it, no matter how close to retirement I was. I'd still get a better rate of return, it would be mine to do with as I wish, the entire amount would go to my survivors, no matter when I die, and I wouldn't have to choose between what I've earned all my life and what my husband earned all his life when we do start to receive it.
if they privatized it, it wouldn't be social security any more.
it would be private investment by individuals.
what exactly do you mean "if they privatized it"?
Allow people to invest their SS "contributions" in various investment vehicles of their choice. Allow them to get the FULL benefit of their investments and returns. Allow them to use that money as they see fit and leave it to anyone they want, in any form they want. In other words, let it be under the same rules as, say, 401(k) or IRA accounts.
This nation has been richly blessed by programs like Social Security. Turning it over to the sharks and market players would destroy it.
That's one mess that won't have to be cleaned up.
if you treat the SS as any other market investment, then you really will have a SOCIALIST system...but not just socialist in savings, socialist in marketplace ownership The Federal system, with such huge buying power, would begin to own more and more of the market itself.
you wouldn't privatize SS (you can't, it's a social program by it's very nature)...but instead what you would be actually doing is socializing the marketplace...capitalism as we know it would be gone. The market would increasingly be owned by the government.
Marketplace socialism....that's what your "privitize Social Security" would get you.
If we had "privatized" social security, say, 30 years ago, would you care to guess how much of the market the federal government would control by now?
It would only work the way you say if, as the Clinton administration briefly suggested, the federal government controlled where the money would be invested. I'm talking about individuals investing their own money. I understand it works extremely well in Chile.
then you aren't talking about social security.
we have this already, it's called private investment in retirement accounts.
It's about turning Social Security into private investment accounts.
abolishing it.
This nation has been richly blessed by programs like Social Security.
Pyramid schemes do richly bless those that intiate them.
It wouldn't abolish it, it would give people control over their own and their employers' "contributions."
people already have this...it's called a 401K, a retirement plan...what have you.
those aren't social security...they are private retirement plans.
I'm well aware of that. Not everyone has access to one. I'm talking about fixing Social Security so it isn't such a rip-off and so that people can actually build wealth with it.
you aren't talking about fixing it, you are talking about raiding it to invest in private corporations. It's only "rip-off" is politicians using our monies to finance things other than our social security.
It's a ripoff in the fact that it depends on pyramid scheme type financing.
the only thing that makes it a pyramid or reserve pyramid is a rise or fall in population levels...this is a flaw, not a rip-off.
It's a ripoff when we keep paying into it when we know it's bound to go bankrupt.
it is funny how crabs doesn't give a damn about property rights unless the property is drugs.
what the fuck are you talking about?
You love that the government takes people's money for SS but you can't stand that there are laws that won't allow you to have your drugs.
the government doesn't take anything...it's still ours.
the government doesn't take anything...it's still ours.
You're funny, mostly in a crazed sort of way.
aren't you an American?
you have a bank account, bodine, right?
the bank has your money, right?
is it your money or the bank's money now?
aren't you an American? That's what my passport says.
you have a bank account, bodine, right? what difference does that make?
the bank has your money, right? if I have money in the bank it is because I personally decided to put it there.
is it your money or the bank's money now? This thing you call thinking has got to be hurting you. It certainly isn't doing you much good. The government forces me to pay into SS, I can choose to put money in a bank account or not.