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: CMS27 who wrote (231)	6/30/1998 1:30:00 PM
From: Turboe	Respond to of 13060

I think they said 99% of users do NOT abuse...

To: CMS27 who wrote (231)	6/30/1998 1:48:00 PM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13060

"If 99% don't use drugs, how does drug use being illegal affect thier liberty?" Perhaps you should ask a fellow named Donald Scott (sp?) of California. Oops, you can't. He's dead. He was shot dead because an informant claimed he was involved in drugs, and they kicked down his door under no-knock. Mr. Scott took exception to his house being invaded, and was killed by the storm troopers. Mr. Scott was cleared of any drug involvement, posthumously. I'm sure Mr. Scott didn't mind his meaningless sacrifice for the "greater good". Barb

To: CMS27 who wrote (231)	6/30/1998 2:04:00 PM
From: MeDroogies	Respond to of 13060

It doesn't affect the liberty of the 99%, but the 1%. Why should there be a tyranny of 99 against 1? As for the common good being used to promote tyranny...it is the only way to promote tyranny. A tyrant uses his/her power to provide a more "livable" or "desirable" environment. To say that as a result common good is not nullified and still exists...I'd say you are right...in the sense that the "common good" is the protection of individual rights. Ever seen a tyrant who promoted individual rights?

To: CMS27 who wrote (231)	6/30/1998 4:22:00 PM
From: CMS27	Respond to of 13060

All, I have enjoyed today's discussion on some important issues. Unfortunately I can't keep up with the pace of this thread. Sorry to any responses I left unanswered, there were a bunch I know. Good luck to all. Scott

To: CMS27 who wrote (231)	6/30/1998 4:47:00 PM
From: Daniel W. Koehler	Respond to of 13060

Scott <<Where an individual scarafice is justly made for good of the common or whole body of citizenry >> You obviously believe in altruism. It doesn't exist in nature why should you presume that government possesses it. Government, like any other bureaucratic organization, acts in it own self-interest-not necessarily for citizens. The old joke about a taxpayer being a life support system for a bureaucrat is no joke as far as I'm concerned. <<I don't follow you. If 99% don't use drugs, how does drug use being illegal affect thier liberty?>> Privacy. Illegal search and seizure of property. Presumption that owning small quantities of drugs implies abuse. It's the old "antecedents of behavior" argument that I've alluded to on this thread. Drugs are morally neutral. Punish the tort, irrespective of whether it was committed by a drug abuser or sober citizen. Ciao, Daniel