I am a conservative

[pax]

Oh of course theres the need to respect the context of the individual case. I dont usually believe in a right of return after a certain point. I do think there should be economic reparations tho reasonable in amounts.

What we want is not to evaluate all economic losses like the millions in south america who lost land to large land holders who wanted to implement large scale agriculture like coffee. Its not possible to know how much ebtter they would have been. But its easier to see if they are so much worse than they had been beforehand.

I only see this as reparations done thru an international fund for infrastructure developpement. We cant possible analyze on an individual basis the legal implications. We can only recognize the wrongs on their macro scale and seek some measure of restoring hope to those dispossessed.

Like the palestinian issue we cant see them return to Israel proper. But leaving the west bank and leaving the established settlements to be used by the palestinais would be a good gestures if not actually a decent form of reparation. It might not be enough there but each case is probably complex on a macro scale even so we cant detail even every major issue.

My only point is that Im in fact as libertarian in this case as you are only I see gov's redistribution of wealth as reparation on a macro scale of present and past wrongs where force was imposed.

So we dont really disagree. Its like my asking why were unions necessary to my union rep one day. Because govs hadnt done their work to protect workers from wrongdoing. So unions came up as stronger collective units to bargain with powerful large employers. So the same can be said of why we need gov. Because the ideology of not forcing someone else to do something was never a fact in reality.

 

[RussSchultz]

If I were to apply your "preemptively protect society by prohibiting classes of behavior", I'd have to convert us into an Orwellian state.

Um, if that were the case, we're already orwellian.

We have traffic laws: stop lights and stop signs; speed limits; rules on which side of the road to drive; crosswalks; we're not allowed to drive drunk; etc.. These all impinge on your freedom to drive as you wish.

We're prohibited from utilizing some state lands for our own enjoyment in order to protect them.

We're prohibited from owning some sorts of firearms.

Why? Because the benefit to society is greater than the cost.

Every law balances freedoms vs. cost/benefit. Some are pretty obvious (drunk driving), others are a bit iffy (controlling pot) and others are a little less iffy (harder drugs with high addiction rates)

 

[kyleb]

well you don't think Orwell just came up with 1984 all on his own do you? however at this point we are Orwellian light at most.

 

[MaxSt]

Right now for example, Dubya wants to...

Dubya is not a conservative. He is a Republican.

Check this out: Conservative groups break with Republican leadership

National leaders of six conservative organizations yesterday broke with the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, accusing them of spending like "drunken sailors," and had some strong words for President Bush as well.
"The Republican Congress is spending at twice the rate as under Bill Clinton, and President Bush has yet to issue a single veto,"

.

 

[kyleb]

My beliefs are simple: the only rights that truly exist and that are moral and ethical are negative rights

doh, i got so into agreeing with everything else that i forgot this part which i dissagree with. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness;

The right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are not positive rights (to be provided by society), they are negative rights, by and large, to be provided by restricting government from abridging them. Your right to life means no one has a right to deprive you of that life through force. Your right to liberty means no one has a right to abridge your freedoms.

The declaration of independence was written before the welfare state. The authors certainly meant these rights with respect to the monarchy, the state.

i see, i was speaking in literal terms as i wasn't aware of figurative terminology you were referencing. now that i have done a bit of digging on the terminology i can again say that i agree with you on this matter.

 

[DemoCoder]

We have traffic laws: stop lights and stop signs; speed limits; rules on which side of the road to drive; crosswalks; we're not allowed to drive drunk; etc.. These all impinge on your freedom to drive as you wish.

We're prohibited from utilizing some state lands for our own enjoyment in order to protect them.

Both of these have to do with your behavior on public property. Build your own speedway and you should be able to drive according to your own rules.

Every law balances freedoms vs. cost/benefit. Some are pretty obvious (drunk driving), others are a bit iffy (controlling pot) and others are a little less iffy (harder drugs with high addiction rates)

Tobacco has a higher addiction rate than most "hard" drugs, and arguably costs society more money yearly in the healthcare system. I grew up in a household with a father who was an alcoholic and a sister who was a heroin addict from her teens, and I'd have to say my father's alcohol addiction was worse for the family.

Worse, is Prohibition II (Drug War) has made growing coca and poppies far more lucrative than they should be, causing poor farmer to grow it instead of food, increasing violence on our streets, increasing violence on third world streets by funding warlords, increasing prices to the point where being a dealer is so profitable it attracts too many people into that line of work, mostly inner city kids, and probably funneling some money to opium growing terrorists when we should have been funneling it into treatment.

Go rent and watch Kevin Costner/Sean Connery/Al Pacino's "The Untouchables" and see if there are any lessons to be learned.

 

[pax]

You mean Robert Deniro... Dont think Al was in that one tho its been about 10 years since Ive seen the film...

 

[Ty]

Some is, some isn't. I do believe there is a statue of a limitations due to technical infeasibility of tracking down the stolen property and proving responsibility. The Etruscians are dead. The Ainu are close. And the American Indians are never getting back the US, because 280 million people can't be deported, and weren't here when it was stolen.

There is an interesting story on abcnews.com that seems to touch upon some of your discussion. In this case, though, the lady whose family had their property stolen was undeniably the owner.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/World/nazi_art_040228-1.html

Every law balances freedoms vs. cost/benefit. Some are pretty obvious (drunk driving), others are a bit iffy (controlling pot) and others are a little less iffy (harder drugs with high addiction rates)

But as Demo was also saying, many of our laws are based on cultural norms, not necessarily a strict code of "This act has been proven to be bad to society". Obviously we draw heavily upon Judeo-Christian ethics but has it been proven that a different set of ethics would be counter-productive to our supposedly religiously tolerent country? Naturally the answer is 'no' and would have to be a case-by-case basis but I'm sure there are many laws on the books that haven't been proven (and you like hard facts, yes?) to be harmful (whatever that means) to society.

 

[DemoCoder]

To me, the drug war is an obvious disaster. I grew up in inner city Baltimore. Before the "Drug War" was launched, my neighborhood was fairly peaceful, no gun battles, no one was a dealer, except in pot, which people grew at home alot of times, and many of my friends were looking forward to normal jobs.

After Drug War, I was treated to the rapid demise of my neighborhood. Dealers sprung up, violence increased because of turf wars, gun shots sounds were fairly common. And many of the kids I knew back then became dealers (who wouldn't? A teen selling drugs could make hundreds of day vs a paper route) As people were driven out, the empty houses became crack houses and gang hangouts.

Would any of this have occured if cocaine could be purchased like cigarettes and alcohol from your local liquor store? Wouldn't drugs be "safer" if regulated legally by the FDA. No danger of people "cutting" them with random substances to increase profits.

And do you see Budweiser and Coors fighting gun battles over turf wars for customers? They fight on the airwaves, and if needed, in the courts.

 

[pax]

They've done legalizing trials in Switzerland and in well known Amsterdam. In the swiss trial crime dropped to almost nothing. Especially robberies and car theft. Neighborhood parks taken over by junkies and dealers cleaned up almost overnight. Most junkies not got their fix from legal clinics. Many even hold regular day jobs as heroine and the related family of narcotics is actually dirt cheap. They simply get their twice daily fix and they become functional when properly dosed. Not all go that route of course... But the situation is much better than before...

Im way in favor of legalizing but regulating to help rid the country of the huge mafia setup to import of distribute the 10 billion worth canadians consume each year... The legal market for it would be much less of course but itd be a nice 2-3 billion market ripe for taxation...

 

[Willmeister]

Worse, is Prohibition II (Drug War) has made growing coca and poppies far more lucrative than they should be, causing poor farmer to grow it instead of food, increasing violence on our streets, increasing violence on third world streets by funding warlords, increasing prices to the point where being a dealer is so profitable it attracts too many people into that line of work, mostly inner city kids, and probably funneling some money to opium growing terrorists when we should have been funneling it into treatment.

Subsidized agriculture from nothern nations is what spurred poor farmers to turn to crops that those interests cannot legally grow. In the 1950s, Columbia was flooded with cheap subsidized grain to the point where farmers first turned to other cash crops like coffee. But then a lot of the larger firms basically owned the governments of some nations and the authorities in these nations ignored criminal pressure tactics on farmers by proxies/paramilitaries. It was particularly bad in Columbia where goons would come in and say "The price of coffee on the international market is $2.00/lb, but you'll sell your crops for $0.50/lb and we won't rape your wife and kill your kids."

This is the birth of FARC in Columbia and why the still have steadfast support from the rural community because many still remember this crap from decades ago.

What did farmers then do? Turn to crops that were denied to large agribusiness. If one needs another reason to end subsidies, Columbia in the 1950s is a good example of the seriuosly-negative implications of them without even speaking of their market-distorting effects.

As for decriminalization, I'm not so sure our self-absorbed society should be allowed another form of soma.

 

[DemoCoder]

I'm sure that explains everything Will. That's why Afghanistan produces heroin right? Cause we forced them to sell coffee at below market rates.

 

[Tahir2]

Supply and demand, Democoder. Anyway when the Taliban were around OPIUM production was virtually non-existent in Afghanistan apparently.
Hah... I'm gonna leg it - before I get burnt to a cinder.

P.S. The post Russ made about ''when can I kill my child 6 months etc'' I'm not 100% sure what it was really about since I am not versed in US politics, but I found it quite disturbing. Perhaps that is what its desired effect was?

Edit: grammar

 

[Clashman]

As for decriminalization, I'm not so sure our self-absorbed society should be allowed another form of soma.

I would just like to point out that there is a difference between decriminalization, (what I favor), and legalization, (which is what DC seems to be promoting). I think legalization could likely prove to be seriously damaging, and there are in fact good reasons as to why certain drugs were outlawed in the first place, and why legal drugs such as alcohol and cigarettes have regulations on them so you can't sell them to 10 year olds. With decriminalization, you would stop throwing people in prison for regular old possession, and instead implement drug treatment programs. I do think certain drugs should be legalized, such as pot, but I think blanket legalization is dangerous.

 

[DemoCoder]

Decriminalization is bunk. It will not solve the problems associated with the black market. Ok, so you make possession and usage legal, but still make it illegal to sell. Well, people have to get their drugs from somewhere (no, not everyone is so dedicated to try and produce them in their basement), so *SOMEONE* has to take the illegal risks to sell them.

That means higher prices, and no legal recourse when a sales deal goes bad, hence, street justice. Since advertising and legal shops can't exist, drug sellers will rely on holding turf by force, instead of by persuasion.

Since the sellers are defacto illegal and black market, they can't be regulated by the FDA for safety and quality of content. They can't be taxed on their sales.


People keep falling back on protecting the children (which is the parent's responsibility) In many other countries, it is legal for children to drink alcohol, especially if supervised by an adult. In others, children are even permitted to purchase alcohol (usually 15 or 16). But some countries don't even have that restriction and the result has not been to turn that country into a nation of alcoholics.

They also are blantantly hypocrital with respect to their special treatment of alcohol and tobacco, given that these two drugs are way more damaging to our society than the so-called "hard drugs", and I assert that it is the "drug war" against illegal drugs that has resulted in the most harm to our society, especially the poor.

Also, the idea of "treatment" has a presupposed bias that taking drugs is wrong. It is not. Just like gambling isn't wrong. Or Sex. Addiction is a problem, but then again, if drug production was legal, companies would be legally allowed to research and develop recreational drugs that have less addictive sideeffects.

There are many things that are addictive because we enjoy them (e.g. Counter-Strike, gambling, sex, etc) but they aren't physically addictive like alcohol, tobacco, or heroin. I'd like to see commercially produced variants of hard drugs that aren't physically addictive.

The other implicit bias that bugs me is the idea that it's ok to take a drug if it fixes some defect you have or health problem, but taking something to enhance your performance is somehow deeply wrong. Oh, except for caffeine and ginseng, which are culturally accepted performance enhancers. Yet another hypocrisy in the way drugs are treated.

That's what I meant about liberals not being liberal enough. They are still deeply conservative when it comes to body enhancement, modification, and in general, biology. Both the techno-phobe left and don't-mess-with-Gods-work right form a scary duo.

 

[RussSchultz]

P.S. The post Russ made about ''when can I kill my child 6 months etc'' I'm not 100% sure what it was really about since I am not versed in US politics, but I found it quite disturbing. Perhaps that is what its desired effect was?

Kyleb was stating that abortion was a right, essentially because the mother would have the burden of raising the child therefor deserves the choice. He disagreed that there was a helpless 3rd party involved in late term abortions.

I attempted to delve into when that choice should be taken from the mother. Everybody agrees killing a 6 month old is murder, and a newborn. Most would agree that right before birth would be, and many probably agree a week before. Maybe not a month, and many would not agree two months before birth.

Where is the line? When does it cease being a choice, and becomes murder of a helpless 3rd party?

 

[Tahir2]

Thanks for clearing that up Russ, I just wasn't sure what you wrote was a response to someone else and you were using shock tactics to get your point across.. even if you didn't consider it shock tactics your post was quite disturbing in a thought provoking, graphic and horrific way (well to me at least). I just had a very slight but nagging thought in my head that you were being 'literal.' That's the joys of the internet and discussion forums though.

My thoughts on abortion would pretty much echo your own with the difference that an abortion is the absolute last resort (for example the life of the mother was at risk) and done within a set period, (about 45 days or so after conception edit: and not later).

The idea that a child is the property of the mother and therefore she has the "right" to do whatever she likes with the 'property' whilst she is still pregnant is, to me at least, flawed. Why do I say this? My view is that the child is a gift not an object to be done with however you feel like as most would agree after the child is born and except in certain extreme conditions the child is the responsibility of the parent(s) rather than a burden. You cannot go about murdering a 6 year old child eve if it is your own because you think you can no longer feed that child. An unborn child who has begun to develop his/her own personality in the womb is meant to be accorded its own set of "rights" as a human being.

Some will argue, "whatabout rape cases or desitute poverty where is the choice then?," for them all I can really say is that would you chop off your own limb if you are starving to feed yourself? You have that choice but when you make the only "choice" as to terminate a new life then the only person you have fooled and harmed is yourself.

Funny that it is your post that really made a mark on me (not your fault - quite the opposite in fact), I have forgotten what the rest of the thread was about. It all seems a bit frivolous compared to the rights of a child.

Edit: clarification

 

[kyleb]

Russ tends to twist peoples' positions around to make them sound absurd; i don't think it is intentional, but it sure happens a lot with him. if you look back at my post you will see that i simply feel that it is the mother's right right alone to make the decision prior to birth. i feel this way because the responsibility of carrying the child to term as well as the inevitable responsibility of raising the child is not something that is not something that a mother can just pass off on others if she feels unfit for the duty. when so many children are abused and neglected by unfit parents, sometimes to the point of death; abortion seems like a more human alternative in my option.

 

[RussSchultz]

So I presume you're ok with abortion moments before birth?

What is so magical about going through the birth canal that changes that "humane choice" to murder?

 

[kyleb]

again i want to point out that i am personally against abortion, so saying i am "ok with abortion moments before birth" is a gross exaggeration. however, being of a libertarian mindset i don't think it is anyone place to impose their moral standards on anyone else. as for what is so magical about going through the birth canal; birth itself, expulsion from the womb and into the real world. no more is it fetus pumped with nutrients to sustain it, but now a living creature which, though its will to live, ingests nutrients on its own accord; therefore intitled to all the rights that come with being a human.