#881
|
|||
|
|||
Ayn Rand's Utopia
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 14:11:47 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote: On Friday, July 24, 2015 at 4:25:56 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: There are things like privacy, or a minimum living standard, or health care that were never dreamed of as rights a couple hundred years ago, and which are now widely recognized as such. How do we draw the line between "natural" and "man-made" rights? Privacy might be a natural right, but the others you cite require other people to *do* something, to wit, pay taxes. So they can't be universal rights for all times and places, since it's only recently we could afford such things. That's a good point, although I see things like personal freedom as being dependent on economics, as well. Slavery is a perfectly reasonable and arguably necessary system in many cultures (certainly, history supports that viewpoint). Democracy almost certainly depends on an educated, rich society. Individual choice in vocation also requires a rich society. But saying that we're not limited to *always* providing universal health care does not prevent us from doing so when we can. So I don't see this distinction as limiting, instead it illuminates the nature of our choices. I'm just not convinced that we could ever come to a complete agreement about what rights are natural and which are man-made. So we either leave important rights off the "natural" list, or we place on that list rights that we might not be able to support under all circumstances- but which are going to be very difficult to get rid of if we're forced to see them as "natural". |
#882
|
|||
|
|||
Ayn Rand's Utopia
Quadibloc wrote:
On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 6:50:18 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote: Yes. Vermont is much more rural. Rural areas have less crime. Even in Britain where there are no handguns and anyone shooting a burglar risks a life sentence. Aside from statistics, I find this incomprehensible. Police have the training and expertise required to capture dangerous criminals alive for possible rehabilitation. By what *right* does the government force an innocent citizen to tolerate the presence of a burglar in his home, to risk possible further victimization should he be armed, and so on and so forth? All negative consequences of the burglar's decision to commit a crime should be strictly confined to the burglar - and shooting him on sight is a straightforward way to achieve this. Of course, once he is utterly helpless, shooting him again would still be murder. John Savard The government was forced to ban handguns by the vast majority of citizens who demanded the ban, Burglars do not carry guns in Britain, When my wife came home and found a burglar climbing out of the kitchen window with the video recorder she shouted at him "Put that down" in her best teacher's voice and he carefully laid the video down and ran away. She wasn't armed although she was very angry and chased him. You don't need guns. |
#883
|
|||
|
|||
Ayn Rand's Utopia
Lord Vath wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 20:08:19 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins wrote this crap: Lord Vath wrote: On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 16:17:33 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins wrote this crap: You might also consider that the US has a court system that allows violent criminals to walk the streets. I consider drug dealers to be violent criminals because the product they sell causes other people to do violent acts. Then do something about the court system. Unfortunately the whacko liberals are allowing drugs and drug dealers to be legal, and the courts are becoming more liberal. This country is headed in the wrong direction. Welcome to the United States of Barakistan. What was the solution to the high crime rate during prohibition? Nothing. Because the cops were on the take. And the public liked their booze. Before you even equate prohibition to our current situation, you must remember you can make booze anywhere. I make beer and wine in my laundry room. I can't make heroin there. You can grow cannabis anywhere. No you can't. You can grow poppies anywhere although they need to be warm for a good yield of opium. No you can't. The economics are the same as alcohol in the prohibition era. The main function of police in the economics of drugs is to push up the prices which encourages the criminals. Use the capitalist system. Legalise drugs and sell them in controlled shops. Tax them. The criminals will have to find something else to do. The drug dealers will first look for a new target, the schoolyards. Then they'll make their product more potent than the gubmint stuff. The drug dealer doesn't want to give up his lifestyle, the flashy cars, the bling, and the skanks. He is not going to go back to flipping burgers. This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe The drug dealers would get very little money from the schoolyards and there would be a lot of spare police available to deter them. It would be impossible for drug dealers o make their drugs more potent than pure legal drugs since they make a lot of their profit now from cutting them to make them less potent. They would have to give up their lifestyle if your police were serious about it. |
#884
|
|||
|
|||
Ayn Rand's Utopia
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 22:05:20 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap: Unfortunately the whacko liberals are allowing drugs and drug dealers to be legal, and the courts are becoming more liberal. This country is headed in the wrong direction. Welcome to the United States of Barakistan. What was the solution to the high crime rate during prohibition? Nothing. Because the cops were on the take. And the public liked their booze. Before you even equate prohibition to our current situation, you must remember you can make booze anywhere. I make beer and wine in my laundry room. I can't make heroin there. You can grow cannabis anywhere. No you can't. You can grow poppies anywhere although they need to be warm for a good yield of opium. No you can't. The economics are the same as alcohol in the prohibition era. The main function of police in the economics of drugs is to push up the prices which encourages the criminals. Use the capitalist system. Legalise drugs and sell them in controlled shops. Tax them. The criminals will have to find something else to do. The drug dealers will first look for a new target, the schoolyards. Then they'll make their product more potent than the gubmint stuff. The drug dealer doesn't want to give up his lifestyle, the flashy cars, the bling, and the skanks. He is not going to go back to flipping burgers. The drug dealers would get very little money from the schoolyards and there would be a lot of spare police available to deter them. That's a laugh. It would be impossible for drug dealers o make their drugs more potent than pure legal drugs since they make a lot of their profit now from cutting them to make them less potent. Do you realize that you just contradicted yourself? They would have to give up their lifestyle if your police were serious about it. Now there's the problem. The police only go after criminals when a crime has been committed. They do little to deter crime. This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe |
#885
|
|||
|
|||
Ayn Rand's Utopia
Lord Vath wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 22:05:20 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins wrote this crap: Unfortunately the whacko liberals are allowing drugs and drug dealers to be legal, and the courts are becoming more liberal. This country is headed in the wrong direction. Welcome to the United States of Barakistan. What was the solution to the high crime rate during prohibition? Nothing. Because the cops were on the take. And the public liked their booze. Before you even equate prohibition to our current situation, you must remember you can make booze anywhere. I make beer and wine in my laundry room. I can't make heroin there. You can grow cannabis anywhere. No you can't. You can grow poppies anywhere although they need to be warm for a good yield of opium. No you can't. The economics are the same as alcohol in the prohibition era. The main function of police in the economics of drugs is to push up the prices which encourages the criminals. Use the capitalist system. Legalise drugs and sell them in controlled shops. Tax them. The criminals will have to find something else to do. The drug dealers will first look for a new target, the schoolyards. Then they'll make their product more potent than the gubmint stuff. The drug dealer doesn't want to give up his lifestyle, the flashy cars, the bling, and the skanks. He is not going to go back to flipping burgers. The drug dealers would get very little money from the schoolyards and there would be a lot of spare police available to deter them. That's a laugh. It would be impossible for drug dealers o make their drugs more potent than pure legal drugs since they make a lot of their profit now from cutting them to make them less potent. Do you realize that you just contradicted yourself? Drug dealers don't deal in pure drugs. If street addicts get pure drugs they usually overdose and die. Drugs prescribed from pharmacies are pure and injected in much lower doses than street drugs. So the dealers couldn't make their drugs more potent than legal drugs. They would have to give up their lifestyle if your police were serious about it. Now there's the problem. The police only go after criminals when a crime has been committed. They do little to deter crime. Police don't deter crime? Google police strikes. |
#886
|
|||
|
|||
Ayn Rand's Utopia
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 23:09:36 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap: The drug dealers would get very little money from the schoolyards and there would be a lot of spare police available to deter them. That's a laugh. It would be impossible for drug dealers o make their drugs more potent than pure legal drugs since they make a lot of their profit now from cutting them to make them less potent. Do you realize that you just contradicted yourself? Drug dealers don't deal in pure drugs. If street addicts get pure drugs they usually overdose and die. Drugs prescribed from pharmacies are pure and injected in much lower doses than street drugs. So the dealers couldn't make their drugs more potent than legal drugs. What fantasy world do you live in? Liberaltopia? Pot is often fortified by drug dealers with crack, meth, hash, or heroin to give a bigger high and to get you addicted and want to buy more. This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe |
#887
|
|||
|
|||
Ayn Rand's Utopia
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 20:38:50 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote: What fantasy world do you live in? Liberaltopia? Pot is often fortified by drug dealers with crack, meth, hash, or heroin to give a bigger high and to get you addicted and want to buy more. Here in Colorado, where pot is legal, it's assayed and sold with its active ingredients quantified. There's a LOT less illegal MJ trade. Legal pot has largely wiped out the illegal pot business. |
#888
|
|||
|
|||
Ayn Rand's Utopia
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 23:13:08 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap: On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 20:38:50 -0400, Lord Vath wrote: What fantasy world do you live in? Liberaltopia? Pot is often fortified by drug dealers with crack, meth, hash, or heroin to give a bigger high and to get you addicted and want to buy more. Here in Colorado, where pot is legal, it's assayed and sold with its active ingredients quantified. There's a LOT less illegal MJ trade. Legal pot has largely wiped out the illegal pot business. You think it has. There still is a large illegal supply. Liquor is legal in my state, but there is still a large supply of moonshine. It's cheaper and more potent. This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe |
#889
|
|||
|
|||
Ayn Rand's Utopia
Quadibloc wrote:
On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 3:55:47 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote: Chris L Peterson wrote: On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:28:52 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc wrote: So much so, that I would even do what was in my power to promote a fanatical belief in the superiority of democracy as to make millions of people... willing to slaughter other millions of people, if need be, that democracy will not be destroyed. If that's what it takes to maintain democracy, I say good riddance. How many would you be prepared to slaughter: one million,five million, one hundred million, a billion, five billion, 20 billion? Well, let's put it this way: I was serenely untroubled by the need for nuclear deterrence, because regrettable as the necessity for it was, I saw no good alternative to propose. Life under tyranny is not worth living, and allowing the future generations of humanity to very possibly be condemned to it without end... is _worse_ than fighting a global thermonuclear war to prevent it. John Savard I also supported nuclear weapons but I certainly wasn't untroubled. You were in North America with a 30 minute warning. In the UK that was a 4 minute warning. Vulcan bomber pilots whose function was NATO first response wore an eyepatch so that if they lost eyesight due to a nearby nuclear explosion they would still be able to fly using the other eye. Many people in neutral democratic countries would also have died. The end result of nuclear war would be the destruction of the Northern Hemisphere and the ascendancy of the less democratic Southern hemisphere probably led by South American countries. |
#890
|
|||
|
|||
Ayn Rand's Utopia
In
-sep tember.org Mike Collins wrote: I also I wondered why this thread popped up in this newsgroup again, but then I realized that the 30-day expiration on my filter had expired. Rather than filtering the subject of this thread, the best approach would be to permanently filter everybody in it. What the hell is wrong with you people? -- St. Paul, MN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Prof. Frank J. Tipler's "A Liberal Utopia" | James Redford | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 22nd 13 04:07 PM |
Rand Simberg is back! | Dale Carlson | History | 1 | February 23rd 11 10:18 AM |
I Have Found Utopia! | jonathan | Policy | 1 | September 23rd 05 01:02 AM |
Utopia? | Double-A | Misc | 2 | July 15th 05 04:40 PM |
For Rand | Rand Simberg | Policy | 9 | September 25th 03 06:27 PM |