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 (214)	6/30/1998 12:39:00 PM
From: MeDroogies	Respond to of 13060

<the pursuit of happiness, when the pursuit of happiness by many is hampered by the pursuit of happiness from a few, law is established to protect the majority.> 1. I never claimed to be more intelligent. I questioned, based on your above comment, whether you had read these documents. 2.You do, above is the exact quote, state that law is established to PROTECT THE MAJORITY. Quite the opposite. Law is established to protect the rights of the minority (or it is supposed to, under our original laws). 3.The Wealth of Nations, agreed, is an excellent book. State the 4 funtions that Smith proclaims a reasonable government should have...even then, while Smith is basically correct, Gary Becker (I think that's his name) of the University of Chicago has shown how Smith was incorrect in some of his assumptions. For example, Becker shows how "common good" items such as roads and lighthouses were first privately developed and maintained...and later the government took them over. Despite all this, Smith, in the Theory of Moral Sentiments, clearly states several Libertarian ideals. The most obvious was "The Invisible Hand" (that's right, the hand ain't in the Wealth of Nations). 4. I CAN show you statistics, if you want to do it off this forum, that clearly show alcohol and cigarettes are AT LEAST AS (if not more) dangerous as other drugs... I haven't called you stupid. I haven't called you a tyrant. I have merely matched point for point. I want definitions and explanations for why one drug is more dangerous and should be outlawed....THAT I haven't seen yet....from anyone...even the medical profession. BTW, ever go to Mexico? There, you can buy far more over the counter than you can here. I don't see any significant differences in drug use...although alot of them get fairly wealthy bringing it over here...

To: Mike P. who wrote (214)	6/30/1998 12:46:00 PM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13060

" my neighbor wants to have the local band come over and set up in the back yard and party all night. 2 oclock in the morning and their in full 'pursuit of happiness'. but the rest of the street is unable to sleep" This is a clear infringement on the rights of the neighbors to the quiet enjoyment of their property. There is no infringement on anyone's rights if your neighbor wants to sit in his house and quietly consume cannabis. If subsequent behavior on the part of the person who consumed the cannabis or whatever substance infringes on others rights, the subsequent behavior should be punished. It is wrong to punish the 99 people who would not infringe on the rights of others because 1 person who shares a common activity with the 99 does so. Barb