Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LPS5 who wrote (3148)	9/28/2003 11:47:59 PM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

NYC used to be a friggin zone of anarchy when I was growing up. Now, it's just another law and order city where you can't even drink in public anymore. I grew up in and currently live in NYC, and it has never been a "zone of anarchy." It has seen cycles of crime and fiscal problems come and go, and the latest stage of regulations (smoking in bars comes to mind) is just another that illustrates the tug-of-war between two parties that only differ in how much the government gets, the Demolicans and Republicrats. A Libertarian in New York City?!? That's got to be rarer than a Republican in New York City (a pretty rare occurance even in 2003). I dunno, New York was definitely a wilder place when I was a kid (close to anarchy in some parts). I mean the vices were everywhere. You could drink in public without much worry of being harassed. Drugs could be had just about anywhere. There was a general sense of lawlessness. It was as close to anarchy as I've experienced in the U.S. (ever been to Mexico, that still is anarchy in a lot of areas). It was pretty much anything goes for a long time in NYC, you'd have to be pretty out of hand to attract the attention of the authorities. For better or for worse, that all changed with Guliani. I'd be interested in hearing a libertarian's perspective on the reign of Guliani. I mean he certainly did do a lot to improve the quality of life in the city (of course he had some help from a good economy and other macro trends that were working to benefit cities across America). Going after quality of life crimes made a lot of sense. But, Guliani also brought about an unprecedented attack on civil liberties in a city know for it's cherished liberal traditions. No more drinking in public or drugs widely available under Guliani's watch. No doubt, New York City has lost some of it's libertine aspects with the advent of the new policies under Guliani. Not, that it is necessarily a bad thing, it's a much safer city than it used to be. Safe at what cost, though? Where drinking in public comes to mind, I personally think people should be able to drink anywhere they want. After all, it's not drinking that causes problems, it's harassing people, throwing punches at people, and the associated behaviors. Laws predicated on anticipatory grounds are nothing if not a tool of tyranny. I agree. But, the whole concept that Guliani implemented was to go after "quality of life" crimes like public drinking in the hopes that it would create a safer overall environment and it seemed to work. It's true, it's not the drinking that is the problem, it's the inappropriate behavior that sometimes results from drinking that's really the problem. Which brings to mind a whole other libertarian issue. Why should marijuana be illegal? I mean, a Martian who came to earth and was assigned the task of evaluating which was more dangerous and causes more problems alcohol or marijuana would have to come to the conclusion that alcohol was more dangerous and causes more problems than marijuana. In fact, the poor Martian would probably be rather confused as to way alcohol was legal while marijuana was illegal?!? From a purely logical standpoint, it doesn't make any sense. I personally think it's absurb that a mundane drug like pot is illegal, while a dangerous drug like alcohol is legal. It again harkens back to big business meddling in the economy. Does it have anything to do with the fact that Dupont and the paper industry don't want hemp to compete with their products? Or, that the federal beuaracies, having just lost their funding to fight prohibition in the early 1930s, were looking for a new boogeyman to justify their budgets? I dunno for sure. But, Nylon (Dupont's synthetic fiber) was invented the same year as when the marijuana tax act was passed (1937) and the feds were (as all buearacracies naturally do) looking for a reason to justify their existence and budgets after prohibition ended. There really aren't many rational arguments for why hemp/marijuana should be illegal. It's just absurd, especially hemp, which is even more harmless than it's psychoactive cousin, marijuana. I know libertarians generally favor drug legalization. What do you think?

To: LPS5 who wrote (3148)	7/30/2004 8:48:29 AM
From: Rock_nj	Respond to of 20039

Fair enough. I think you've made your case well for an urban form of Libertarianism. It makes sense. Thanks. Although in some aspects it seems the government actually runs things better than private enterprise. I grew up in New Jersey, and the transit system here was in shambles while under private ownership in the 1960s and 1970s. The private companies had no incentive to invest in their systems, they just ran them at a bare minimum and it showed. The government agency, NJ Transit, has done a wonderful job rehabilitating transit in New Jersey. It's now more or less state of the art now, everything has been redone. The train station in my hometown of Summit, NJ was a wreteched nightmare as a child. Now, it's entirely refurbished, and it is bright and pleasant. Division of Motor Vehicles is the latest experiment in privatization in New Jersey. During the Republican Whitman era in the 1990s, she privatized DMV. The results were less than stellar. Service went downhill as private companies tried to squeeze out profits, complaints rose, and it was eventually taken back over by the state under Democrat McGreevey. While not perfect, people are much happier with the reforms McGreevey has implemented to improve service. I understand the point of Libertarians wanting to shift as much of our economy to the private sector as possible. That's a desirable goal if it makes sense to do so. What do you think the proper roll for government is in our society? Should police and fire depts. be public or private? I'm just wondering where you'd draw the public/private line? Also, my obession with survivalist individualists in regards to Libertarianism, is that I have spoken to arm chair Libertarians who talk about their desire to see a Libertarian world. But, the way they live their lives is hardly Libertarian or individualist. They're reliant on all sorts services both public and private for their existence. It's people like that whom I challenge to try living a true individualist existence for a time, see if they still like when they have to catch/grow their own food, take care of their own medical problems, that sort of thing. I guess that's why they created things like Outward Bound to let people taste that sort of lifestyle.