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: Neocon who wrote (2655)	5/8/1999 10:04:00 AM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13056

Neocon, my views of the roads are perhaps the exception that prove the rule in my belief system. The highway system belongs to no one, can't be privatized in a reasonable fashion, and affects every single person in the country, including the most extreme agoraphobe. It makes more sense that pornographic images are a symptom of a problem rather than a cause. If 9 out of 10 viewers of pornography commit rape, what of the 10th? Why should he suffer for the acts of the other 9? It is the act that should be punished, and not peripheral activities. I believe one could make a reasonable argument for incarcerating all men under that logic. After all, practically all violent crimes are committed by men, and quite the majority of violent crime committed by women is inspired by men. Perhaps with cloning and some further advances of science, we'll be able to do away with the Y chromosome completely. Your arguments about Prohibition that you claim to be mine aren't accurate representations of my views either. If you really think it's not almost as easy to produce bootleg drugs as bootleg liquor, you obviously don't have much practical experience in the matter. The red herring about the number of users of the particular substance is the tyranny of the majority at its finest. Another red herring is that alcohol is the only drug that can be enjoyed in moderation. It isn't so, but regardless, is irrelevant. If we're talking about harm to the community, and laying the blame for the harm caused by people at the feet of the drug they've ingested, alcohol is the clear, hands down winner for destructive impact. If that is criteria for prohibiting the substance, it is hypocritical to argue the alcohol should not be banned. Your argument in regard to alcohol vis a vis other drugs is inconsistent. Barb

To: Neocon who wrote (2655)	5/8/1999 2:48:00 PM
From: dave rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

<<<The question, which also encompasses our own uncertainty of analysis, is what is a tolerable level of risk to the community?>>> Perhaps these "tolerable risks" are the price we must pay for our liberties and rights. Tis a small price to pay IMHO. daverose

To: Neocon who wrote (2655)	5/12/1999 12:23:00 AM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

While some Libertarians feel that arresting a drunk driver is unreasonable because he hasn't "done anything wrong", I disagree. The minute he sits behind the wheel, he has done something wrong. He has put others at an excessive (not unreasonable - excessive) risk of injury. I don't believe in roadblocks, but I don't have a problem with an officer pulling over a weaving vehicle. I just got back from vacation in NC. In Kitty Hawk, 4 teenagers were killed by a "drunk" woman. Likelihood is (due to her long history of drinking) that she was operating her car as normally as possible at .25 alcohol level (4 hours AFTER the accident). Alcoholics tend to operate, seemingly normally, at an elevated blood alcohol level. However, minor impairments that aren't noticeable lead to mildly erratic behavior. In this case, she ran a red light. I'm not overly happy with this solution, but it is reasonable in light of the fact that so many fatalities on the road are a result of drunk driving. One last fact about this worth pondering: the drunk driver isn't usually killed because their body is relatively limp on impact. They tend to get tossed around and suffer some level of injury - but not usually death. Invariably, others suffer at the hands of a drunk driver.