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 (2821)	5/12/1999 4:45:00 PM
From: Richard Babusek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13062

Neocon, in response to; Well, if there were more reason to believe that once one opens Pandora's box one can put everything back in order and shut it again, I would be less antagonistic to calls to legalize any and all vice Well if the box is closed, it's presumptuous to assume someone can divine that it must have the nature of Pandora's. Who is trying to put stuff back? Where? That's the presumption I resent, that we must be able to figure out where everything goes. Beyond my needles, I'm actually sympathetic to much of what you say. However I resent the federal level of involvement, to the point of meddling. With thousands of municipalities why aren't they left to deal with problems of say prostitution. There may be various solutions appropriate to various locations. Perhaps we could make progress from the diversity inherent in the concept of states rights. What the heck is prostitution anyhow? The networks prostitute themselves for ratings all the time. They know much of what the produce is potentially harmful. Provocative programming is by it's very nature potentially dangerous, if we understand to be provoked is to be provoked to action or something. We are not provoked to sleep! The politicians prostitute themselves. We all have the tendency to fall short of our ideals in terms of character for short term “fun”. The Sullivan case of the '60's was a situation that cried out for federal intervention. I grew up in Southern California during the '40's and '50's. I didn't have sympathy for the civil rights movement of my childhood for two reasons. First I wasn't aware of the situation. Secondarily where I lived, I was the minority (an Anglo), I lived in a Hispanic ghetto (barrio). I had many black and Hispanic (we said Mexican then) friends. I just didn't believe the stories I heard about whites lynching blacks. I couldn't believe legal segregation existed. I just didn't know. If I accept Federal intervention in Alabama for such as the Sullivan case, that shouldn't create license to expand beyond the principle involved. There seems to be an assumption that States Rights must necessarily, or at least have a tendency, to turn out as pathological is those in Montgomery, and Alabama. Therefore preemptive measures are acceptable to keep anyone from opening a box, just in case it may create some chaos. Ricardo

To: Neocon who wrote (2821)	5/26/1999 12:45:00 AM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13062

Why, back in a time when drugs and various other vices weren't illegal, were there fewer problems with them? Now that they've been made illegal, their threat seems to grow? Even as illegal as they are, their threat seems to take on a growing concern, one which requires more legislation and more gov't action. It seems we can never make them too illegal or prosecute them too harshly. To be honest, perhaps the best answer is to incarcerate all perpetrators of vice, because we can get them off the street and avoid their deleterious effects once and for all. At the same time, perhaps we can treat them. The tougher we treat them, the more likely they'll go away - right?

To: Neocon who wrote (2821)	6/11/1999 4:13:00 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13062

Vice Criminalization. For your consideration. I believe it is not true that criminalization of vices limits those vices. Arguments here indicating that such law clearly fails to stop vice, at a great economic cost to society, and for little return- are simply quite true. I believe, for example, that statistics reveal that the end of prohibition brought upon a slow but steady decline in % per capita alcoholism. This issue involves a far different area of law than those that deal with individual actions that have direct consequences upon others such as theft and murder. As a Libertarian I believe freedom works. One is free to harm oneself if one chooses, and simple common sense dictates that while such behavior may be all too common, it is self-limiting by it's nature; but where it exists it is highly resistant to laws which say "no." You can't legislate morality. Again, freedom works, even on this issue. We live in Pandora's open box as it is- and we simply can't close through criminalization that which is already open. You already seem to agree that any attempts to totally control vice are necessarily too extreme and untenable. Since acts harmful to oneself are naturally limited by common sense, do we really need vice criminalization? No. You've said that criminalization is one way to reduce vice. This seems logical- but because Pandora's box is always and irrevocably open- the vices can always be procured just the same- short of the extreme measures we both see as inappropriate. There will always be a significant indulgence in vices- and there is a negative synergy when we couple vice with illegality which must be taken into account. The demand for vice will always be filled by a means of supply. Criminalization raises the stakes indeed, and while one might simply see logic in the notion that this should lower the supply, it in fact adds a great risk to the supplier which greatly increases the price and profits involved in his venture. The artificially high profit margin is in fact a great stimulus to supply. The incentive to the high school kid to become a pusher is strong where little incentive would otherwise exist. As a result, and since self-destructive behavior is self-limiting, there are many sellers of dope of all kinds who are not themselves users(this, despite current criminal consequences). The incentive to procure drugs for sale and say to acquaintances "try this, you'll like it" are far TOO great. I witnessed this process as a High School student myself. It is surely insidious. The source of supply of say, marijuana, may/will also be selling LSD, cocaine, crack- you name it. The virgin user is pushed to grow up, have fun(drugs as glamour, too), and not be a sissy. Insidious indeed. Worse still, the seller will have connections to major suppliers who have guns, attitude, will travel, and spread the law of the jungle...i.e. not just an "eye for an eye", but the more extreme "eye for a finger" attitude that teaches quite literally "cross me(tell the truth of my activities) and I'll kill you." This is called wisdom- and it passes down as wisdom- and it's the tip of an iceberg. These are not terribly nice people, in general. The association with artificially created "pushers" brings very immoral notions down through the chain of sellers- and right into our schools where they spread even among kids who never ever yet touched a drug(and may never). Insidious indeed. I may sound a bit rabid here, but in all reality it is happening even in little towns all across the country as I write. Prohibition brought us Al Capone and the rest, who were in it for the money. Drug prohibition brings us inner city drug territories and gangs- making it not wholly safe to go out at night(probably an understatement). So again, I say freedom does work even on this issue. The true Pandora's box God(perhaps?) gave us is opened much wider by the act of legally prohibiting vices which are personal in nature and not directly harming others. We CANNOT legislate morality(who said that?). I think it was Libertarian Presidential candidate Harry Browne who said that you don't see drunks hanging out near high schools trying to glamorize and sell Alcohol to kids in order to make money and/or feed their habits. As Harry's said, the war on drugs is insane and needs to end now. If we stop this war we will greatly ease our drug problems AND our crime problems. We can tell our kids that through legalizaton we are taking away the incentive for the drugsters to push drugs in our schools- taking away their profit prospects- cutting the link of association and all the hell that breeds. Then, only those few folks who would be self-destructive users in any event will remain users- there will be no artificial incentive for them(and others!) to encourage people to become users- nor will they need to become muggers to feed their habits. Legalization would bring LESS drug use and crime, I am quite confident. Sigh.... I hope I wasn't too windy here, I've probably written it better but this is all I have tonight. Freedom works. We need to apply it to every issue we possibly can in our time. Dan B