Don't Drug Test Welfare Reciepients?!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
After reading a lot of these posts lately, I’ve had a couple of possible realizations.

  1. No matter what structure we have, even in an Anarchist structure, you will eventually see some type of “government.” It can be as simple as a community council or something, but there will be something.
    [/quote]
    This has been one of my points this whole time.

[quote]
2. I do not believe many people can argue with the previous. It’s just human nature; however, I think we see the problems we have today b/c the amount of control over such a large population. [/quote]

No doubt about it.

[quote]
I see a positive with having some sort of US Government, but unless it effects interstate trade of some sorts or something truly has an impact on the nation as a whole (perhaps defense), perhaps that’s where their influence should end. And then as you work your way down the “government chain” Fed → State → County → City/Town, the more influence/control over “personal” stuff can happen. This can then allow states, counties, and cities/towns to COMPETE for residences and business and such. At this time, my life changes very little moving from state to state or city to city, except maybe some minor annoyances. So much control happens from the Federal level. We all start to feel a little trapped. And then the response is “if you don’t like it, move to a different country.”

Instead, it can be “if you don’t like it, move to a different city/state.”

I dunno, just some thoughts here.[/quote]

Not only would I absolutely support the above, I think the founders had something very similar in mind.

142

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Well, he can claim it but whether or not he actually owns it would depend upon others acknowledging it. [/quote]

That’s a good point. [/quote]
And you know this as well as anyone that all of these rights exist and are maintained because other people are willing to die for them. If a group of people, a nation, wants to put certain restrictions and regulations on those rights in exchange for that same group being willing to protect those rights with their lives then it’s a bargain. Nick cannot defend his property or rights by himself. If he wants the group to help him protect his property then he needs to accept that the group might put some restrictions on his rights. I mean, shouldn’t we also have a say when it comes to what we are willing to fight and die for? I am not willing to die to protect someone’s right to torture their dog. [/quote]

Like I’ve been saying, it’s about the scale and scope of the government. Like you I would not be willing to give my life so Michael Vick can hold dog fighting events on his “property”. [/quote]
People want the benefits of the collective efforts but don’t want to be held accountable to that same collective. If someone wants the “mind your own business” rule to be in effect he better be prepared to accept it as an all or nothing proposition. I’ll mind my own business when you beat your dog and I’ll also mind my own business when someone breaks into your home and rapes your wife. Give the world the finger and you’ll get it right back.

143

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Well, he can claim it but whether or not he actually owns it would depend upon others acknowledging it. [/quote]

That’s a good point. [/quote]
And you know this as well as anyone that all of these rights exist and are maintained because other people are willing to die for them. If a group of people, a nation, wants to put certain restrictions and regulations on those rights in exchange for that same group being willing to protect those rights with their lives then it’s a bargain. Nick cannot defend his property or rights by himself. If he wants the group to help him protect his property then he needs to accept that the group might put some restrictions on his rights. I mean, shouldn’t we also have a say when it comes to what we are willing to fight and die for? I am not willing to die to protect someone’s right to torture their dog. [/quote]

Like I’ve been saying, it’s about the scale and scope of the government. Like you I would not be willing to give my life so Michael Vick can hold dog fighting events on his “property”. [/quote]
People want the benefits of the collective efforts but don’t want to be held accountable to that same collective. If someone wants the “mind your own business” rule to be in effect he better be prepared to accept it as an all or nothing proposition. I’ll mind my own business when you beat your dog and I’ll also mind my own business when someone breaks into your home and rapes your wife. Give the world the finger and you’ll get it right back. [/quote]

I can’t I wouldn’t intervene in both cases if I could regardless of the government (or lack there of), but I get your point.

144

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
After reading a lot of these posts lately, I’ve had a couple of possible realizations.

  1. No matter what structure we have, even in an Anarchist structure, you will eventually see some type of “government.” It can be as simple as a community council or something, but there will be something.[/quote]

This is exactly what John Locke discusses in his writings as a rebuttal to Hobbes and others.

[quote]2. I do not believe many people can argue with the previous. It’s just human nature; however, I think we see the problems we have today b/c the amount of control over such a large population.

I see a positive with having some sort of US Government, but unless it effects interstate trade of some sorts or something truly has an impact on the nation as a whole (perhaps defense), perhaps that’s where their influence should end. And then as you work your way down the “government chain” Fed → State → County → City/Town, the more influence/control over “personal” stuff can happen. This can then allow states, counties, and cities/towns to COMPETE for residences and business and such. At this time, my life changes very little moving from state to state or city to city, except maybe some minor annoyances. So much control happens from the Federal level. We all start to feel a little trapped. And then the response is “if you don’t like it, move to a different country.”

Instead, it can be “if you don’t like it, move to a different city/state.”

I dunno, just some thoughts here.[/quote]

That is precisely one of the things the Founder’s envisioned. The States “were”. Now, and after the Civil War, the States “is”. Big difference.

145

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
After reading a lot of these posts lately, I’ve had a couple of possible realizations.

  1. No matter what structure we have, even in an Anarchist structure, you will eventually see some type of “government.” It can be as simple as a community council or something, but there will be something.[/quote]

This is exactly what John Locke discusses in his writings as a rebuttal to Hobbes and others.

[quote]2. I do not believe many people can argue with the previous. It’s just human nature; however, I think we see the problems we have today b/c the amount of control over such a large population.

I see a positive with having some sort of US Government, but unless it effects interstate trade of some sorts or something truly has an impact on the nation as a whole (perhaps defense), perhaps that’s where their influence should end. And then as you work your way down the “government chain” Fed → State → County → City/Town, the more influence/control over “personal” stuff can happen. This can then allow states, counties, and cities/towns to COMPETE for residences and business and such. At this time, my life changes very little moving from state to state or city to city, except maybe some minor annoyances. So much control happens from the Federal level. We all start to feel a little trapped. And then the response is “if you don’t like it, move to a different country.”

Instead, it can be “if you don’t like it, move to a different city/state.”

I dunno, just some thoughts here.[/quote]

That is precisely one of the things the Founder’s envisioned. The States “were”. Now, and after the Civil War, the States “is”. Big difference.[/quote]

And this is what a lot of the talk about “small government” means. People get all like “but wat aboot mah roadz”, but they don’t even understand the argument in the first place.

Small government means local government, and by definition, it would spend significantly less money.

Take the power away from the Feds, and all the money problems solve themselves.

146

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I mean, shouldn’t we also have a say when it comes to what we are willing to fight and die for? [/quote]

The government doesn’t care what anybody is “willing to fight and die for.” Who is this “we” that wouldn’t have a say in what they fight and die for without government? The best argument for statism is the one smh provided-it’s just the natural end result of the regression away from freedom. There’s no moral justification for the state. There’s no logical reason for its existence. It’s just human nature(maybe that counts as a logical reason).

147

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
That is precisely one of the things the Founder’s envisioned. The States “were”. Now, and after the Civil War, the States “is”. Big difference.[/quote]

If that was their intention, they should have done a better job articulating it. It may just be a case of it being easy to Monday morning quarterback, but they left plenty of room for interpretation in their documents. It would have been much better to simply state exactly what the federal government had the power to do; that way, anything else could be seen as a violation of the nation’s law. When a piece of shit like Alexander Hamilton(I would have had no problem feeding him to starving dogs) was allowed to participate in the Constitutional Convention, I have to think that we are becoming exactly what many wanted.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/hamtexta.asp

148

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
People want the benefits of the collective efforts but don’t want to be held accountable to that same collective. If someone wants the “mind your own business” rule to be in effect he better be prepared to accept it as an all or nothing proposition. I’ll mind my own business when you beat your dog and I’ll also mind my own business when someone breaks into your home and rapes your wife. Give the world the finger and you’ll get it right back. [/quote]

I have absolutely no problem with that. What kind of man expects or wants others to rush to his aid? It would be totally different if I paid another to help me. If I willingly paid for protection, I would expect protection. If a man robbed me, I would think there was a far greater chance of him raping my wife than of some random guy doing it(and I imagine that history will back me up on this point).

149

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And this is what a lot of the talk about “small government” means. People get all like “but wat aboot mah roadz”, but they don’t even understand the argument in the first place.

Small government means local government, and by definition, it would spend significantly less money.

Take the power away from the Feds, and all the money problems solve themselves.
[/quote]

Article on the type of governance you(I’m guessing) and I would support: 1,000 years of Irish Anarchy | On the Mark

150

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ nick , I have been trying to get at the nuts and bolts of how Nickyville would work . OK how and who determines if rules are broken and what can be done about it ?[/quote]

The people involved.

The people involved would have to come to cooperative agreements.

What if Person A doesn’t want to cooperate? What if he doesn’t want to cooperate with government?

The difference would be, if you are smoking pot on your property, I would not waste my money messing with you. If you are shooting heroin in your basement, I would not waste my money messing with you. Of course, maybe I would want to mess with you; maybe I’m a power-hungry asshole. Then, maybe everyone in society would join me. We would then be back at our current state. It would make a lot more sense for your neighbor to come to your aid and kill me as soon as I try to mess with you, because if I get to conquer your property, why shouldn’t I conquer his?

151

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
That is incongruous. I can control your property as far as how it relates to my property. This is implied in your post. In Nickville a property owner can sue for damages but cannot do anything to prevent the damage in the first place? [/quote]
-No, you can’t control my property. You can control your property. My property can’t harm your property unless you allow it, or I have violated your rights. Fence your property. Do what you want. There’s no such thing as absolute security. What is it they say about trading liberty for security?

-Nobody has any right to own another. CAN one hold another captive? Sure, doesn’t make it a right. I know the government restricts what can and can’t be owned. I do have a problem with that. It’s nice to know that if you are robbed, you will not care, since the property removed from you did not belong to you.

[quote]

And as far as cruelty to animals goes, yes, it does affect others. It does bring down the quality of life for everyone which can actually cause damage to property values. And since you admit that there should be limits on property ownership (as you say that one cannot do something on his property that will damage another person’s property) you open the door on others acknowledging it. [/quote]

-It does not affect others. It does not bring down quality of life for anyone. If people mind their own business, nobody would even know.
I have never acknowledged there should be limits on property ownership. I have said that one can’t harm the property of another. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins; It does not end when the thought of my fist hitting your nose begins. Physical damage. Not subjective judgment. I don’t think I have the right to kick a black neighbor out of his house because a Neo-Nazi wants my house and says he will pay more than I am asking if I do so. If POTENTIAL property devaluation(you can neither know, nor prove that what a neighbor is doing on his own property has devalued your property…unless there is physical damage to your property) is justification for anything, then nobody can do anything.

152

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Yeah, “private property” for sure. When my home garden starts to be regulated, the government apparently DOES care about what I do on my property…

and this one is my favorite

http://blog.usfoodsafety.com/2013/09/28/health-department-raids-local-farm-to-fork-picnic-dinner-orders-all-food-to-be-destroyed-with-bleach/[/quote]

they regulate the fuck out of my garden :slight_smile:
[/quote]

You like having your garden regulated, don’t you? lol[/quote]

I could understand if I were growing Nuclear Reactors or the like

153

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@ nick , I have been trying to get at the nuts and bolts of how Nickyville would work . OK how and who determines if rules are broken and what can be done about it ?[/quote]

The people involved.

The people involved would have to come to cooperative agreements.

What if Person A doesn’t want to cooperate? What if he doesn’t want to cooperate with government?

The difference would be, if you are smoking pot on your property, I would not waste my money messing with you. If you are shooting heroin in your basement, I would not waste my money messing with you. Of course, maybe I would want to mess with you; maybe I’m a power-hungry asshole. Then, maybe everyone in society would join me. We would then be back at our current state. It would make a lot more sense for your neighbor to come to your aid and kill me as soon as I try to mess with you, because if I get to conquer your property, why shouldn’t I conquer his?[/quote]

Smoking pot and shooting heroin I would not punish one difference would be in Pittsburg you would get free rehab if you like and heroin would be so cheap and such a good grade that you would not have to steal or the like to support your habit and the high grade would guarantee that unless you overdose you would have very few medical problems like with Junk or Kroc.

Cut costs every turn

154

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Smoking pot and shooting heroin I would not punish one difference would be in Pittsburg you would get free rehab if you like and heroin would be so cheap and such a good grade that you would not have to steal or the like to support your habit and the high grade would guarantee that unless you overdose you would have very few medical problems like with Junk or Kroc.

Cut costs every turn
[/quote]

Still not making the connection between socialism and the punishment of victimless activities, huh? Socialized rehab will bring drug laws right back. Punishments will grow progressively harsher under socialism.

155

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Smoking pot and shooting heroin I would not punish one difference would be in Pittsburg you would get free rehab if you like and heroin would be so cheap and such a good grade that you would not have to steal or the like to support your habit and the high grade would guarantee that unless you overdose you would have very few medical problems like with Junk or Kroc.

Cut costs every turn
[/quote]

Still not making the connection between socialism and the punishment of victimless activities, huh? Socialized rehab will bring drug laws right back. Punishments will grow progressively harsher under socialism. [/quote]

Society pays for drug abusers any way you slice it unless you leave them rot in the gutter . Even then rotting corpses will have an effect on every one else’s health .

No there is no perfect answer to an imperfect problem .

What would Nickyville do with the rotting flesh . Or would there be any people living in Nickyville ?

156

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Society pays for drug abusers any way you slice it unless you leave them rot in the gutter . Even then rotting corpses will have an effect on every one else’s health .

No there is no perfect answer to an imperfect problem .

What would Nickyville do with the rotting flesh . Or would there be any people living in Nickyville ?
[/quote]

Ah, the “government is the only reason dead bodies are buried or cremated” argument. You have certainly convinced me that government is necessary. We wouldn’t even have to worry about dead bodies if we convinced a majority to vote against mortality, right? That settles it; I’m running for office on the “Zero Deaths” platform.

Is there any area of life which is not improved by government intervention? You don’t even argue that government should stay out of drugs-you want the government to use the money it steals to subsidize drug use and abuse.

Who owns this “gutter,” and why does its owner allow dead bodies to be placed there to rot?

157

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
That is incongruous. I can control your property as far as how it relates to my property. This is implied in your post. In Nickville a property owner can sue for damages but cannot do anything to prevent the damage in the first place? [/quote]
-No, you can’t control my property. You can control your property. My property can’t harm your property unless you allow it, or I have violated your rights. Fence your property. Do what you want. There’s no such thing as absolute security. What is it they say about trading liberty for security?

-Nobody has any right to own another. CAN one hold another captive? Sure, doesn’t make it a right. I know the government restricts what can and can’t be owned. I do have a problem with that. It’s nice to know that if you are robbed, you will not care, since the property removed from you did not belong to you.

[quote]

And as far as cruelty to animals goes, yes, it does affect others. It does bring down the quality of life for everyone which can actually cause damage to property values. And since you admit that there should be limits on property ownership (as you say that one cannot do something on his property that will damage another person’s property) you open the door on others acknowledging it. [/quote]

-It does not affect others. It does not bring down quality of life for anyone. If people mind their own business, nobody would even know.
I have never acknowledged there should be limits on property ownership. I have said that one can’t harm the property of another. My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins; It does not end when the thought of my fist hitting your nose begins. Physical damage. Not subjective judgment. I don’t think I have the right to kick a black neighbor out of his house because a Neo-Nazi wants my house and says he will pay more than I am asking if I do so. If POTENTIAL property devaluation(you can neither know, nor prove that what a neighbor is doing on his own property has devalued your property…unless there is physical damage to your property) is justification for anything, then nobody can do anything.[/quote]
The problem with your reasoning is that reality proves you wrong. You would need to live in a vacuum. Things are connected. A society that allows cruelty to animals is a society in which not even you would want to live as those societies have even less freedom than here. The quality of life is worse. Whether you like it or not you have to deal with other people. Dealing with people who agree that animal cruelty is wrong is a lot better than dealing with people who think it’s OK. And as I said, if you want a mind your own business society it is an all or nothing proposition. You can’t say you want people to only get involved when it benefits you.

158

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Who owns this “gutter,” and why does its owner allow dead bodies to be placed there to rot? [/quote]

In Pittsburg The GOV owns the roads and gutter to make the best effort of free travel and safety. The Bodies in Pittsburg would be removed by the GOV

In Nickyville I don’t know who owns the gutter or if they would pick it up. I do know there are not many examples of countries running as you suggest. But please tell me about Nickyville

159

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Who owns this “gutter,” and why does its owner allow dead bodies to be placed there to rot? [/quote]

In Pittsburg The GOV owns the roads and gutter to make the best effort of free travel and safety. The Bodies in Pittsburg would be removed by the GOV

In Nickyville I don’t know who owns the gutter or if they would pick it up. I do know there are not many examples of countries running as you suggest. But please tell me about Nickyville
[/quote]
In the Congo there are some.

160

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
The problem with your reasoning is that reality proves you wrong. You would need to live in a vacuum. Things are connected. A society that allows cruelty to animals is a society in which not even you would want to live as those societies have even less freedom than here. The quality of life is worse. Whether you like it or not you have to deal with other people. Dealing with people who agree that animal cruelty is wrong is a lot better than dealing with people who think it’s OK. And as I said, if you want a mind your own business society it is an all or nothing proposition. You can’t say you want people to only get involved when it benefits you. [/quote]

I already said that I never want people to get involved in my business. I said that I would likely be willing to pay for some defense. If you are saying one can’t exist without the other, I will say you’re wrong. Do you truly believe that there can be no hired defense or protection in a society unless the society recognizes no limits on the powers of the protective agency(that is what you seem to imply when you say it’s an all-or-nothing proposition)? I certainly can say that I only want people to get involved when it benefits me. A plumber doesn’t come inspect my pipes each day, has no right to enter my home without permission, but will show up during Thanksgiving dinner if a guest has clogged my toilet with shit and I ask him to respond.

If you are saying it’s all-or-nothing in that even if the police see my wife being raped in my home, they can’t enter my home to stop it, then I am willing to live with that. I much prefer that to having the government not acknowledge any restraints on its power. I don’t want anyone to enter my home uninvited, for any reason, under any circumstance; certainly not without a warrant, at least.

With all your talk about the evils of animal cruelty, you better be a vegan. Of course, you don’t even define animal cruelty, so I really have no idea what you mean when you say it. Is hunting cruel? I would say that a non-defensive shooting of a human is wrong, so is hunting wrong? Is chicken fighting cruel? The chickens WANT to fight-no fight happens otherwise. Would it be less cruel to slaughter the chickens for food? Is keeping a dog tied up or caged in a backyard cruel? How is that more cruel than keeping the same dog locked inside a house?