1 edit
@sonhouse saidActually, I'm not at all bitching, <grin>...
@Earl-of-Trumps
So are you bitching about the Swedish thing or the Iraq thing?
I was however, hoping to catch you blaming Trump for the whole thing 🙂
@athousandyoung saidEarl's position about drugs sounds awfully similar to the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to drive without insurance
Does this mean you agree with Earl that poor people should not be allowed to use drugs because of the costs to society?
I've never met a Libertarian who felt personal choices should be illegal because of the cost to society.
@athousandyoung saidMany countries allow people to drive without insurance. Compulsory insurance is a scam cooked up between the multi billion dollar insurance Co's and their goobermint buddies.
Earl's position about drugs sounds awfully similar to the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to drive without insurance
This is the great thing about travel, country A regulates 'this and that' but they're free on the 'whatevers and who-hows', Then you go to country B and they've got it all backwards, they're free on 'this and that' but regulate the hell out of the 'whatevers and who-knows'. And you know what, people are just living their lives, some with a few more parasites riding them than others.
Go buy a ticket to Cambodia or NZ or where ever, experience the world and see what a scam goobermint bureaurats and compulsory insurance are.
@athousandyoung saidBUMP
Does this mean you agree with Earl that poor people should not be allowed to use drugs because of the costs to society?
I've never met a Libertarian who felt personal choices should be illegal because of the cost to society.
Wajoma?
@athousandyoung saidI can't comment on what Earl believes, if you think things get heated and combative here at RHP, it's nothing compared to libertarians debating each other, usually along the lines of who is the purest.
BUMP
Wajoma?
At the root of it is the non-initiation of force (NIOF) or non-aggression principle (NAP)
Earl can speak for himself.
1 edit
@wajoma saidOf course you can comment on what Earl believes, but that's not what I asked.
I can't comment on what Earl believes, if you think things get heated and combative here at RHP, it's nothing compared to libertarians debating each other, usually along the lines of who is the purest.
At the root of it is the non-initiation of force (NIOF) or non-aggression principle (NAP)
Earl can speak for himself.
Should poor people (and ONLY poor people) be banned from drug use because of the cost to society?
1 edit
@athousandyoung said1] When prostitutes spread STDs I am certain that their Johns' health insurance pays. Silly question?!
When prostitutes spread STDs who pays for the medical treatment?
When Koran burners encourage terrorists who pays for anti-terrorist security?
When alcohol drinkers drive and kill people, who pays for the police who pull over drunk drivers?
You are simply pointing out the flaws in the simplistic Libertarian worldview. Every individual's choices indirectly effect others.
2] taxes. and that is a big concern. we see that every time there is a protest in America by any political group.
3] paid for by taxes, whether there is crime is committed or not.
ATY said 'Every individual's choices indirectly effect others.
===========
Yes indeed, we would need no police if there were no criminals, which is not going to happen.
However, we can do a much better job of getting a lot of errant drug users to stop.
Look at it from this PoV: A cop sees a gas station being robbed, the cop intervenes.
A cop sees druggies in the street, the cop does nothing.
The only other option worth exploring is to refuse the perps medical services, perhaps.
@wajoma saidShould it be illegal for poor people (and ONLY poor people) to have sex because of the potential cost to society?
1/ Not only prostitutes spread STDs, who pays when it isn't a prostitute = the same people that pay when it is a prostitute.
2/ The goobermint has three legitimate roles: Police, Justice, Defence You have a right to burn the koran, the bible, the flag, the rainbow flag there's no distinction because some are more sensitive to their rags being burned.
3/ The owners of the roads eventually, until then, as above. Drunk drivers are an objective threat.
@earl-of-trumps said1) Does this mean you believe health insurance should be legally required by law?
1] When prostitutes spread STDs I am certain that their Johns' health insurance pays. Silly question?!
2] taxes. and that is a big concern. we see that every time there is a protest in America by any political group.
3] paid for by taxes, whether there is crime is committed or not.
ATY said 'Every individual's choices indirectly effect others.
========== ...[text shortened]... nothing.
The only other option worth exploring is to refuse the perps medical services, perhaps.
As rates of sickness increase insurance rates go up for everyone. Poor people who get STDs are being treated by insurance that people who don’t get STDs have to pay. Is this ok with you?
2) Poor drug users treatment is paid for with taxes and their health insurance too. Does this mean you also think poor people should be banned from drinking alcohol and having sex because of the potential cost to society?
I don’t understand what relevance your POV comment has to do with what non rich people should be allowed to do because of potential costs to taxpayers.
@athousandyoung saidYes, only this is worse.
Earl's position about drugs sounds awfully similar to the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to drive without insurance
In real life, we see people go a lifetime without a serious auto accident.
We also see druggies OD all the time. There were 102,000 people that died from OD'ing last year, opioids, mostly.
So as you can see, taking drugs far riskier than driving an auto, yet it is the auto driver that has to be insured.
Honestly Earl and with no intent to be snarky, I cannot see how the idea that the State should ban only poor people from doing anything because of the potential cost to taxpayers can in any way be consistent with the liberty and individualism focused political ideology called Libertarianism. Nor can I see why you think it consistent that some things can be banned for this reason but not others.
Wajoma is aggressively and evasively hostile so I know I won’t get a clear answer from him but you aren’t like that, I know.
@earl-of-trumps saidShould drug use be allowed by the State only if the individual is licensed and insured?
Yes, only this is worse.
In real life, we see people go a lifetime without a serious auto accident.
We also see druggies OD all the time. There were 102,000 people that died from OD'ing last year, opioids, mostly.
So as you can see, taking drugs far riskier than driving an auto, yet it is the auto driver that has to be insured.
Do you agree that it should be illegal to drive without insurance as per current law?
@athousandyoung saidNo.
Of course you can comment on what Earl believes, but that's not what I asked.
Should poor people (and ONLY poor people) be banned from drug use because of the cost to society?
I didn't bother answering because it's a ridiculous question with an obvious answer
1 edit
@earl-of-trumps saidIt’s kind of strange for you to post in Debates if you don’t want to identify the position you are arguing for
your curiosities about my frame of mind are boundless, eh?