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".

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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