hilariousandco, you're so "all over the place" in you're responses that I barely even know how to respond to you. Most of your arguments are nonsensical and based on rationalizations.
I'm not all over the place but you're right you don't know how to respond but that's not my issue. My arguments are quite simple and are ones that are brought up time and time again when people want to ban things just because people might do some harm with it. Remember, every tool is a weapon if you hold it right (so ban tools, right?). Your arguments seemed to be
it's against the law so it's wrong and that makes you a criminal and being a criminal is wrong. I'm saying just because something is against the law doesn't mean it's wrong. Taking drugs does not hurt anyone else, therefore it's not a crime. If an adult wants to take drugs then that is their choice. Simple as that. There shouldn't be any argument here if you valued other people's liberty.
A drug racketeer is equal to Martin Luther King? A fast food restaurant is equal to a pusher getting someone strung out on heroin?
No. Your argument was it's against the law and people die because of drugs. So? People die from Burgers. Ban burgers because people die from them? Are we going to get the parents of morbidly obese kids crying in court trying to sue McDonalds on the basis that
McDonalds are driven by greed in making burgers easily available to vulnerable people? Don't be silly. People are responsible for their own actions.
You know what a rationalization is, don't you? A rationalization is where you tell yourself your hungry because society won't give you the tools to get a job but instead of stealing food you steal a Lamborghini. You rationalize stealing several hundred thousand dollars because you're hungry.
I'm not sure what this has to do with not wanting the government locking people up for non-crimes. Theft is depriving someone of something. Somebody taking drugs doesn't hurt anyone else but possibly themself (and again, that's their choice).
Nonviolent resistance and protesting work within the legal system to change the laws that are unjust. That's what Ron Paul stands for, not just breaking any law you want to break.
Ron Paul seems to stand for liberty and people making their own choices:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Eca-INIOwHe just said pretty much everything I've been saying. I'm starting to like this guy more and more. This really isn't about breaking any laws you want; it's about
unjust laws that hurt nobody else. Can you tell me why you or anyone else should have a say in what drugs I may or may not want to take? This isn't an argument about wanting to rape or murder. I just don't want people to be punished for something that isn't a crime.
Libertarians and anarchists to me seem like people that have a couple of laws that they want to break, like drug laws, so instead of working to get support to change the laws they don't like they just want to chuck out the whole system. That's very short sighted.
I'm not saying chuck out the whole system and only extreme anarchists believe that but the system is flawed and corrupt so the chances of getting anything done is slim. Why do we still lock people up for petty drug possession? America is a Corporatocracy so unless you have the money to do so you're not going to get anything done. If an industry does or doesn't want a law to pass then they just lobby the government with their millions and they get their way so they can profit from it.
Yes, Ron Paul does support no taxes of any kind. I can't support that because I've become accustomed to street lights, paved roads, public education, fire departments, running water, electricity and all those silly little things that make my life more comfortable.
Are you a socialist? You can still have all those things without any government intervention though.
I guess the next time a 16 yo kid cuts in front of me to steal my parking space at the mall I'll just just break the law and baseball bat all the windows in his car because that would be justice, right? It wouldn't be legal but it could be considered civil disobedience to gain justice.
No, don't be silly. What does this have to do with anything? Is that what justice would be to you? Would you be beating people up and smashing their property up for merely stealing your parking space if this was permitted? My entire argument is something isn't crime if it doesn't hurt or endanger anyone else. Beating someone up or trashing their property hurts them.
Laws exist because we can't just let anyone do anything they want.
Laws should exist to stop others from hurting you or depriving you of something ie theft. Taking drugs doesn't fall under that. People should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies just as long as it's not hurting anyone else. That is my argument. Yours is
don't let people do what they want with their own bodies. Gov does not have a right to tell me otherwise. Do you believe in freedom or a nanny state where the gov needs to tell you what is right and wrong and police every aspect of your lives?
If we did the weak people in society would be preyed upon by the strong.
How so? Are weak people not preyed upon in society now?
I don't want my daughter to be strung out on drugs by some some guy for profit and forced to be raped by perverts to pay for her heroin habit. I don't want to live in your world.
Drugs being illegal isn't going to stop this from happening. I'm sure you probably don't want your daughter drinking or smoking either. Are you proposing that the gov should ban cigarettes and alcohol? I mean, your daughter could get drunk and have sex or be raped. Regardless, if she wants to take drugs then that's her choice but she should be your responsibility until she's an adult, not the governments. You can't babysit her forever either as much as you probably want to.
Fortunately for me, I'm in the massive majority and you are in the minority.
Just because you're the majority doesn't mean you're right.
I'm not sure why anyone would want to belong to that group.
PS: I've had to explain this several times in the past so I should probably put it in my sig line. My name in society isn't QuestionAuthority. I have a real name that I use for the real world. My name in Bitcoinland is QuestionAuthority because I question the authority of people here that are passing themselves off as authorities. That started about the time that Zhou Tong was fucking everybody blue while little follower drones were singing his praises. Time and time again I've found examples in bitcoinland of so called "authorities" being nothing more than thieves and scammers (DeathandTaxes, Cypherdoc, Mike Hearn to name a few). My name is QuestionAuthority because I don't just believe the bullshit spouted by devs, Bitcoin business owners, pool operators and all the long con bitcoinland rep builders that everyone loves so much here. Satoshi didn't fuck Bitcoin up, the authority figures are doing that.
Fair enough. It's kind of ironic though
.
There is one thing I'd like to try though. I'd like to try legally hooking you on heroin (available on Silk Road). I'd drug you at a party with rohypnol (available on Silk Road). Take you to my crib and shoot you up with Black Speedkitten (heroin mixed with Ketamine and crystal methamphetamine, all available on Silk Road) to make you're memory turn to mush. Then start having people come over and rape you, for a small fee of course. When you're so used up and fucked up that I can't charge top dollar for you, I'd turn you out on the street to bring me whatever little bits of money you can until you die or can't earn enough to buy any more of my Dr. Feelgood.
You're starting to sound quite disturbed. Is this the sort of thing you would be doing if drugs weren't illegal or you could get away with it?
