So stop paying. Leave them on the side of the road. I’m not advocating for govt intervention on either side.
We pay when they steal, rape, assault, murder. They destroy communities. Then we pay again when we incarcerate them.
I think you’re misguided if you believe outlawing drug use will prevent rapes, thefts, murders and assaults.
I would also ask you, as a stated conservative, what your views on “liberty or death” look like? Is legislating freedom of choice away a concept you really believe in?
I’d be curious to hear you make a fleshed out case for why if yes, and then use the same logic but do it with guns. Keeping context with conservatism.
My theory is that you’re not actually conservative at all, at least not politically, but very willing to use a big government and legal system to enforce personal views and bias (used objectively. Please read the word for what it is and not projected green haired bullshit). And, while you may not outwardly attribute your sentiment to religion, you’re exercising the very concept forefathers intended to move away from as they separated church (or groupthink ideology) and state.
No one mentioned drugs. Is that all you meant by ‘letting people fuck themselves up’? Is that all the freedom you’re looking for?
What do you mean by classic conservatism?
Is part of classic conservatism not also upholding the rule of law and the maintenance of social order?
1 Like
We all believe in that. Societies are based on restricting human behavior. Remember, you said you believed people should do what they want provided they don’t hurt anyone. That is limiting freedom of choice.
Owning guns and using guns are two different things. I support gun ownership rights but I don’t support murder.
I never said I was.
Not really. But take out BIG and I think you’ll see that both sides want the government to enforce their personal views. I don’t want drag queens or the Ten Commandments in schools. I want people to have the freedom to form their own personal views.
Unlike many believers, and I never said I was one, I can separate the irrational belief and reality. I would never make an argument using religion, not facts, as evidence. I’m too, and this will sound egotistical, educated and intelligent to think that any irrational beliefs I may hold should be imposed on others. If I can’t make a rational argument, I won’t fall back on an irrational one.
I’m not sure if it was that, or not wanting a Church (capitalization intended) to have temporal power as they were aware of the religious wars that occurred in Europe. Freedom of speech is not compatible with a Church having the power to judge something as heretical and having the power to exact “justice.”
What they thought about religion in general, or a higher power, is a different matter.
If you go back through the comments for context you’ll find that drugs were what kicked this this tangent off.
Sure. By whose definition?
Fair. Anarchy would be a bit much. So then we have a dreaded spectrum. Marijuana vs Alcohol makes a fun example. Or cocaine and caffeine. Thoughts? Where does Zecarlo believe govt should draw lines? And by what justification?
This is exactly my point. Now go back to the other example.
Right. Yet we see institutions systematically encapsulating morals and functioning in a similar way through political influence, even if not as drastically as religious war, inquisitions, witch hunts et cetera.
I think you’re misguided if you believe that legalizing drug use won’t increase all of those things, eventually turning your town into a complete shithole. My town in Maine was a normal, unremarkable college town when I moved here. A walk downtown today seems like you’re in a 3rd world hellhole of human suffering, because that’s what’s all around you.
What I’ve noticed in regions where drugs have been legalized is that public intoxication enforcement is nearly nonexistent. While I realize enforcement here is govt intervention, I don’t personally disagree with managing public intoxication. And, it’s a cost I’m personally willing to pay to forgo loss of freedom of choice.
If my neighbor (a well adjusted family man and lawyer who smokes weed) wants to buy weed I don’t see why he shouldn’t be allowed to because your town won’t manage its degenerates. Why should he lose the right?
@OTay drugs are just being used as an example. FYI.
Ok, they mentioned it but, that was not all.
They are tenants of classic conservatism. That is why I asked what your definition is.
When the cost to benefit ratio becomes a noticeable problem. If drug use/abuse starts to become a tangible problem then something needs to be done.
We pay taxes to have some degree of safety. We also recognize property rights and the idea of protecting property values.
Possessing drugs and using drugs are two different things. You can buy a gun, never intending to shoot someone, but do you buy crack with the idea that you will never use it?
Wait, they don’t have the freedom to be degenerates? We need the government to impose some standards on them?
I think you are confusing libertarianism with conservatism. Libertarians are the ones who have the wacky belief that government should always stay out of the way, i.e. legalized drugs and prostitution. Conservatives have always understood that the law is a tool to incentivize or deter particular behaviors.
Conservatives support the idea of limited government and, here’s the important part, Federalism. The idea being that government, especially the federal government, ought to be as hands off as possible. This leaves as many decisions as possible to be made at the state and local government levels, where individual citizens have much more influence over policy.
Prohibiting the sale, possession and use of substances that are not only dangerous for people but dangerous for society is 100 percent compatible with conservative Republican political thought for the entire history of that party.
1 Like
I am?
Sorry about that, I thought I was replying to Njord.
1 Like
Can you quantify this ratio? I don’t want to gild the Lilly but I’m curious how you A) view alcohol and B) apply standards as a comparison.
I would be interested in a general tax conversation but it would wind being very broad. For these comments I’d circle back to quantifying your cost to benefit ratio.
This is a bit of a non-sequitur. A more appropriate comparison would be “you can buy a gun, use it, and never hurt another person in the process” just like you can buy drugs, use them, and never hurt another person in the process.
So I think we agree on responsible ownership and use.
I acknowledged there is some imposition here. I also discussed a spectrum in this context in a reply to you. I see drunk driving as a problem that does endanger and harm others and can respect a need for legal oversight and enforcement considering, to go back to my stated limitations. I think this can apply across other drugs and even other topics without compromising my view, considering. And without simply banning the substance.
What are your thoughts on the American prohibition era?
Good luck finding a drug addict who is responsible. And there is the difference: addiction.
I don’t think so. How many murders are too many before action needs to be taken? It’s like porn, you know it when you see it.
So again, we pay.
I wasn’t alive then. But any comparisons between fentanyl and alcohol won’t stand up to scrutiny.
I don’t think the government should enforce any religious beliefs. I think they should hold people to simple standards and realize that allowing people to indulge in their most base desires does not result in good things for the public.
As far as specific religious beliefs, while I have my own leanings, I recognize that other faiths have worthwhile teachings as well. I think those need to come from strong families and communities, which are, in my experience, often weakened by too much government involvement.
And that’s one of America’s (or democracy’s?) weaknesses. When you lose the connection to a place, people, culture, customs, etc., you have nothing to live for but yourself. I genuinely believe humans are affected, at least a tiny bit, and whether they realize it or not, by not knowing where they came from. And I don’t just mean “my great-grandparents came from Germany.” I mean knowing what all does that entail.
2 Likes
The people in charge don’t want Americans to have any connection to the past. It’s why the majority of Americans are taught that their past consisted of enslaving black people, and killing and stealing land from natives.
I think you’re projecting personal views and beliefs here. Who’s to say it’s better? And by what criteria? I can see how it would be “better” in the sense of self-sacrifice for communal good but you have to believe that’s an ideal to see it as better. And if you do that’s fine, but I don’t see it as a traditionally conservative viewpoint and it fundamentally aligns with many “bleeding heart” initiatives. Also your prerogative. I would question how conservative you are though.
My take from a handful of internet comments is that we are opposite in our conservatism. I hold small government, financially conservative views but don’t give two shits about social stuff. I vote Republican because they best represent my financial outlooks, which I value above my social outlooks. For the most part, I can live how I want to anyways so the social stuff boils down to “not my monkey” and I’m happy to ignore it while voting for lower taxes and decreased spending.
I get the picture you lean right due to the social issues and are largely shaded by religious belief, and maybe outwardly prefer small govt and low taxes but not if you apply what you’re describing here.
To each their own, but to me the social shit is just todays current events, and the fundamental ideology and policy we vote in around infrastructure, economy et cetera will have the lasting effects.