- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
3
Posted on 3/6/15 at 10:49 am to Aux Arc
quote:
he government shouldn't tell adults what they can and can't do if it doesn't harm anyone else
You're missing my point. "The government" didn't decide to ban drugs and prostitution. The people decided it collectively.
All laws limit individual freedom. You guys are convinced that drugs and prostitution don't harm anyone, but that's not exactly an airtight position for which we should throw out centuries of precedent.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 10:51 am to TheDeathValley
Did you just compare lsd to crack, heroin, and pcp?
Posted on 3/6/15 at 10:52 am to kingbob
quote:
Well if the people don't want prostitution, then that would indicate that there is no market for it. A product or service can only exist so long as there is demand to support it. If those people need a law to "protect" them from prostitution, then it means that there actually is a demand for that service, but the majority in that community view that demand as abhorrent, when it is none of their business. What two consenting adults do behind closed doors should only ever be the concern of the two adults engaging in the action/transaction.
Does prostitution cause pollution that damages the public health? No.
Does prostitution violate the property rights of citizens? Possibly, but only if prostitutes or Johns are already committing the crimes of loitering and trespassing.
Where is the necessity?
If you don't like something that has no effect on your life, DON'T DO IT!
If you hate a TV show, stop watching!
If you really hate it, boycott its sponsors.
If you don't like a product or service, don't purchase it.
It's just that f*&king simple, people.
This exact argument could be made almost across the board for any number of things which people want to legislate out of existence or simply not allow. The problem is they already understand this, and it's why they twist themselves into knots claiming harm on society when there clearly is no such thing.
It's significantly harder to do when your case is essentially, "Hey! What you're doing...I DON'T LIKE IT!!! SO YOU NEED TO STOP DOING IT!! SO STOP RIGHT NOW!!!"
Posted on 3/6/15 at 10:53 am to kingbob
quote:
If you don't like something that has no effect on your life, DON'T DO IT! If you hate a TV show, stop watching! If you really hate it, boycott its sponsors. If you don't like a product or service, don't purchase it. It's just that f*&king simple, people.
You're making an assumption that legalized prostitution and hard drugs would have no effect on the lives of non-participants. That's an assumption that most people reject, so the burden to change their minds falls on people like you. Maybe if you keep yelling your assumptions, that will convince them.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 11:55 am to uway
quote:
You're making an assumption that legalized prostitution and hard drugs would have no effect on the lives of non-participants
Prostitution would have no effect on the lives of non-participants.
Hard drugs is another matter. However, I do believe in decriminalization. Addiction is a disease, not a crime. Hard drug use can lead to stealing, but that's why we have laws against stealing. You're forgetting that no matter the reason for theft, theft is still illegal and prosecutable, last I checked.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 12:15 pm to DrunkerThanThou
I had an economics professor in the 70's that said that we should legalize drugs.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 12:19 pm to TheDeathValley
quote:
Have you ever seen someone on crack, heroine, PCP, LSD?
So what?
Posted on 3/6/15 at 12:23 pm to kingbob
quote:
Prostitution would have no effect on the lives of non-participants.
That's an assertion, not an argument.
quote:
Hard drug use can lead to stealing, but that's why we have laws against stealing.
We have laws against murder too. If we were contemplating a change in law that was likely to drive more people to murder, we would have to think long and hard about whether it was worth it.
If someone wanted to open a crack house next door to to your family's home, would you be cool with that? After all, there are already laws against loitering and theft, so what justification do you have for telling that property owner how he can use his property?
I'm not saying these things should necessarily be illegal. I'm saying it's not as simple as libertarians think it is, and I'm arguing against the concept that people shouldn't be able to vote into law things they believe will make their community better.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 12:24 pm to magildachunks
quote:
Explain why drugs and prostitution should be illegal
They need to remain illegal because they are two of the only ways a large portion of the inner city black communities are able to earn money these days. If they were legal large corporations would take over and suddenly all of the drug dealers wouldn't have an income stream and they would have to make $ by venturing out to our communities and committing theft, robberies, burglaries, home invasions and car jackings UNLESS we gave them way more welfare than we do now. Also, the current prostitutes wouldn't be able to make what they do now since if it was legal way hotter woman would get into the industry.
Basically we need them illegal so we can keep the nice white communities safe without having to give way more money than we currently do to the inner city black communities.
ETA: Also, if we legalized drugs it would have a devastating effect on our economy due to all of the jobs lost. The amount of taxes we would get from taxing the drugs wouldn't even come close to making up for it.
This post was edited on 3/6/15 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 3/6/15 at 12:25 pm to uway
quote:
You're making an assumption that legalized prostitution and hard drugs would have no effect on the lives of non-participants.
I'm not.
I'm saying that's a horrible and quite obvious double standard argument to use when it comes to outlawing substances. We already know of at least two very popular substances that are shown to cause enumerable harm both to the people who use them (both in moderation and not) and to the general public.
That's not an assumption in regards to alcohol and tobacco. It's just that both industries have gigantic lobbying arms and both are beloved by far more people. Essentially, they are not on the table because too many people like them...not because they were weighed against various other substances and deemed better.
FWIW, I'm not suggesting banning any of them. Banning some and not others is, I think, the most intellectually dishonest position. How one can argue that alcohol and tobacco, which cause millions of deaths to users and non users alike (at least in the case of alcohol) plus the gigantic burden on the healthcare system in this country, are off the table and then point the finger at "hard" drugs makes no sense at all.
Sorry...if your concern is the general welfare of the population, these two substances would be on the table.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 12:28 pm to uway
quote:
If someone wanted to open a crack house next door to to your family's home, would you be cool with that? After all, there are already laws against loitering and theft, so what justification do you have for telling that property owner how he can use his property?
That's the thing, I have no justification to tell the property owner what to do with his own property. However, if there is a homeowner's association, ordinance violation, or a zoning violation, that's another argument.
The problem with freedom is that it means that people are free to do things that annoy you. You just have to remember that you are free to do things that annoy other people too.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 12:30 pm to dnm3305
quote:
So what?
They are crazy. I do not want crazy "invincible" people doing things.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 12:36 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
Sorry...if your concern is the general welfare of the population, these two substances would be on the table.
Except that the will of the people is that alcohol and, to a lesser extent, cigarettes remain legal.
Again it seems like y'all want to give people all the rights in the world other than one of the most important rights of all: the ability to form communities that they like to live in.
A useful thought experiment is to imagine that civilization crashed and burned leaving only a few hundred survivors that split into two groups. The first group formed a purely libertarian society. The second group formed a society similar to ours, with laws that sometimes infringed on what people could do (though hopefully far fewer of these laws than we now have), and the vast majority of the people agreed with the laws because thy believed the laws would help to create a good living environment.
Would it be right for someone to leave the libertarian group, go to the other, and start railing against the hypocrisy of the laws and demanding the freedom to live there and do whatever he wanted?
To what universal standard would he appeal as justification for his demands?
Posted on 3/6/15 at 12:38 pm to uway
Like Thomas Paine did?
Posted on 3/6/15 at 12:39 pm to kingbob
quote:
The problem with freedom is that it means that people are free to do things that annoy you.
And again...if you're then going to take the next step and claim that it's not just annoyance but the fear of harm to others, than you'll need to address the elephant in the room that is tobacco and alcohol.
Why does the harm that we already know both cause not matter in terms of legalization across the board, but the harm we'd be worried might happen if we legalize everything matter so much?
Posted on 3/6/15 at 12:41 pm to magildachunks
They shouldn't
/end thread
/end thread
Posted on 3/6/15 at 12:42 pm to GeauxTigerTM
So what I'm getting from the thread is: it should be illegal because I don't like it.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 12:42 pm to kingbob
quote:
That's the thing, I have no justification to tell the property owner what to do with his own property
Do you own a home? Do you have kids that play outside of it? It's fine in principle to say there's no justification for keeping a crack house off your street, but in reality, no one wants to live next to a crack house.
quote:
The problem with freedom is that it means that people are free to do things that annoy you.
I get it, but you need to face the reality that most people simply don't want to live in a world like that if given the choice.
Move to a more laissez-faire place if that's what you like. That seems like a better response than trying to force everyone to agree with you on principle.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 12:46 pm to uway
quote:
Except that the will of the people is that alcohol and, to a lesser extent, cigarettes remain legal.
Again it seems like y'all want to give people all the rights in the world other than one of the most important rights of all: the ability to form communities that they like to live in.
I kind of feel as if you're moving the goal posts here. I was responding to your claim here:
quote:
You're making an assumption that legalized prostitution and hard drugs would have no effect on the lives of non-participants.
That sounds like an argument that suggests you're concerned about the effects on the lives on non-participants, does it not? It's why I brought up alcohol and tobacco.
If, on the other hand, you're simply arguing that the majority ought to have the right to vote any old thing into law based on their numbers alone, I'd disagree as I'm not a fan of mob rule when it comes to the restriction of personal freedoms.
quote:
Would it be right for someone to leave the libertarian group, go to the other, and start railing against the hypocrisy of the laws and demanding the freedom to live there and do whatever he wanted?
No one here is arguing for anarchy...in case that wasn't clear. We're arguing for change within the system allowing us more freedoms (restoring many as it turns out) that we were born into...or do we not have that right either?
Page 5 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News