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 : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike P. who wrote (35)	6/29/1998 10:48:00 AM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

"if we increase the supply of drugs, crime will decrease. is that a fair inference on my part? and if so do you believe this? " The end does not justify the means. If someone violates another's rights, they should be punished for it, whether the impetus for violating those rights was drugs or some other motivation. Believe it or not, most drug users only violate the law against possession, and adding in the percentage that violate the laws against distribution, you find that the great majority of drug users are law abiding people. Can you explain why alcohol related crime diminished considerably when prohibition was repealed? When was the last time you heard of two alcohol dealers shooting it out over a territory? Or an alcoholic that commits burglaries to support his habit? Can we agree that alcohol is the most widely abused, and one of the most addictive drugs available? Yet the country seems to manage well punishing alcoholics for the actual crimes that they commit, not the crimes the they possibly may commit. We could put a severe dent in crime by taking away the liberty that we hold so dear in this country. You wouldn't mind if the police came in and searched your house on a whim, right? The gov't does not have the right to interfere in the consensual activities of adults. That's the long and the short of it. Barb

To: Mike P. who wrote (35)	6/29/1998 10:51:00 AM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

Man, you have a bug up your butt about language. Petty crime is a mainstream and common term for purse snatching and pickpockets... While I agree with you that NO crime is petty to the victim, I hardly see what you are intending on accomplishing by nitpicking on BS like that. If you want to make a point, or take issue with something, don't concentrate on crap like that.... If I was of the same mindset, I'd make comments about your ee cummings writing style. But what would I accomplish by doing that? Nothing. As for increasing the supply...that is the most twisted logic I have ever heard. No, you don't increase the supply to decrease the amount of crime. You decriminalize the supposed crime of drug use so that the "crime" of use allows a free price to be set...supplies will set themselves. The crime of use is not a crime. What if we determine that using a computer is addictive (some would argue it is)? We then outlaw computer usage. Those who use them surreptitiously (laptops on cell phones) then become outlaws...yet they are only exercising their desire to have fun, enjoy themselves or engage in other various and sundry activities. Look at Singapore. Wanna live in a country where GUM CHEWING IS OUTLAWED? I happen to think gum chewing is disgusting and can be messy (when people spit it out, it can make quite a mess), but I would never outlaw it - even if the mess was in a public area. The right to chew gum is what is important. Is there an associated responsibility? ABSOLUTELY!!!! Problem is - every right carries associated responsibilities. We can't enforce responsibilities, we can enforce rights. Responsibilites are a personal choice/action dynamic. Without the rights, we have no choice in whether we should be responsible. We are forced to be responsible, whether it is in our best interests or not. Sort've like "Because Johnny spoke during class, the whole class is penalized." Johnny's responsibility was to NOT speak - yet he did. The class had no responsibility to prevent him. Why should they be punished? People have every right to speak in a movie theatre, but a responsibility NOT TO. Sometimes that rule is broken, and it is a self-policing situation. For the most part, I RARELY have problems at movies (and I live in NYC! Who'd a thunk it?).