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: Andy Thomas who wrote (413)	7/2/1998 6:53:00 AM
From: Libertarian22	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13060

The Libertarian Party national convention is this weekend in Washington DC. You can watch it on C span. There will be some great speakers and discussion as usual.

To: Andy Thomas who wrote (413)	7/2/1998 9:24:00 AM
From: I Am John Galt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13060

The approach should be, "let them use whatever they want, but make it abundantly clear that there will be no government treatment programs for the screwups." Then what you're saying is that "negative" liberty, in the Berlinist sense, should be reduced in favor of "positive" liberty, which reduces the amount of coercion of other human beings upon others. Think about it, guys. The problem that arises from a statement such as that is that you're always assuming that coercion is bad. Even Isaiah Berlin, a purveyor of "positive" liberty in most respects, recognized in this speech to Oxford that coercion has demonstrated throughout history that it is necessary to achieve a common goal. There will be a removal of ideology that holds the country together if the scope of the federal government is reduced. We've seen it before in the Civil War, and since then, because of the size of the federal governments, the states have not had any serious temper flare-ups. We take for granted today the fact that the United States, are, in fact, united. In terms of drugs, we know they are, on the whole, bad for a person. We know that they cause problems. But even I cannot see how people are allowed to drink and smoke but not do drugs. The question is, where do we stop? Do we legalize all drugs? Do we make it so that kids can do drugs, too? If you set an age limit, it seems to me that drugs should be illegal because, quite simply put, you know they're not good for you. If you don't mind your kids doing drugs, then, by all means, legalize drugs. The thing that people take for granted, though, is that we know they are addictive. And we know that kids mimic their parents. Alcohol is abused by almost everyone I know in college. I had a friend that just died this year because of an alcohol related accident. Drugs will only increase the risk. It's scary, people. And nothing gets solved if drugs become legal. The kids will see that they can't do them because of the age limit, and will want to do them. "No" means "Yes" to kids. You know that as well as I do. As a young kid, they'll think it's cool to do them. That's what happens to smokers. And when they become a legal age, they chain smoke. Imagine a chain druggy. One of my relatives was a druggy all throughout college, and he killed his best friend. Where does "negative" liberty end and "positive" liberty begin? The problem is, I'm convinced that most people don't learn a lesson unless something really bad happens to them. Why not just label the drug problem as bad and remove it? Matty Gregg PS This post has a great deal of what I refer to as "hokey" <G>