Think about how quickly all crime would plummet if we set the bar for executions at dealing drugs.
We may have cracked it ladies and gents.
1 Like
Have you read Hans Hoppe? He’s the only libertarian thinker I sort of like. Likely posters here will always clash on our thoughts simply because of how we’re wired, I guess. I have an authoritarian streak. Of the four parenting styles, I’ll likely be primarily authoritative with a touch of authoritarian.
Severa times when discussing societal matters, immediately after I say I’m fine with some authoritarianism/aristocracy/monarchy I’m asked “are you gonna be the monarch/part of the aristocracy? My answer is “likely no”.
Well I certainly would like hear how those who say, strongman-style, “I don’t care if the next man dies from drug use if it’s his wish to use”, would react to this idea. I mean if they don’t care about a drug user dying, why care about a distributor dying.
(I don’t mean you. I don’t think you’re a callous person who says edgelord/strongman narratives).
Exactly. It’s a prelude to complete degeneracy, in my opinion. A society without principles and morals will fail.
1 Like
I haven’t read Hans Hoppe.
I would say the libertarian in me is limited only to the idea of how we create laws. Basically, if it doesn’t impact others (negative thoughts do not count here), then I think it should be legal. Additionally this outlook is limited to social issues. I would not say I am anti tax because that negatively impacts people.
I am for MJ legalization as it does not impact others, I am against crashing cars while high as that does impact others. I am on the edge on something like DUI laws as it is the actual crashing that causes harm to another. I think there are plenty of people who drive better high than most senior citizens do.
1 Like
If a driver is high on weed…it definitely could though. I’ve seen it myself plenty of times.
This is approaching libertinism.
1 Like
I guess what I am saying is that I think if you crash intoxicated the punishment should be higher than a normal crash, but I am on the fence about actually punishing someone before they crash and do harm.
Had to google that one. From google:
A libertine is one devoid of most moral principles, a sense of responsibility, or sexual restraints, which are seen as unnecessary or undesirable, especially one who ignores or even spurns accepted morals and forms of behaviour sanctified by the larger society. Libertinism is described as an extreme form of hedonism.
I would not classify myself as a hedonist. I strive for a stoic life.
Some of that definition seems to apply to me though. I would not say I spurn morals if they have a rational reason for them. If they do not, I generally disagree with them.
It is typically, but dui’s / dwi’s are an absolute nightmare to write. We have preemptive things in place due to the nature of certain types of behaviours being far more likely to result in harming others; i.e. drinking and driving, shooting in city limits, speeding, doing drugs and driving, texting while driving, etc… I’m ok with it provided it doesn’t become unreasonable. Unfortunately, people can not be counted on to not engage in that crap, so we have laws.
I understand why we have the laws like DUI. It makes sense when you account for human nature and are trying to reduce harm. I am just on the fence about if they are correct.
As an example, I would say we should not outlaw guns, but outlaw murders and violent crimes. If you want to reduce gun violence make assault with a gun or murder with a gun a higher penalty than if a gun wasn’t used (although murder should be life in prison regardless, IMO).
I can agree with that. Our circuit attorney refuses to prosecute violent assaults with firearms so the Feds are picking up our cases.
If they’re able to grasp the larger implications of setting the bar for executions at a non violent offense that involves selling a banned good, Id hope they’d run for the fuckin hills lol
If comparing that concept to say, the rest of the countries on the planet, it sounds like we’re describing a country that’s soon to be invaded by America due to lack of freedom (and mostly oil).
2 Likes
Cites a tax eater whose job is reliant on saying it exists. Yeah, it’s a huge number, too, right up there with heroin and coke. The things you people do to cling to your nanny state is hysterical.
FWIW, if I was in charge of things I would not get rid of DUI enforcement even though it does not agree with my ideals. The reason why - people are dumb.
If we ever get self driving cars I think it will be a good thing.
DUI enforcement isn’t the “cash grab” many people think it is. Sadly, monetary fines are an effective form of punishment. And drunk drivers are fucking scum.
I know of a guy who got one after two pints. Maybe it was strong beer. I am not convinced that he was acting recklessly. This is probably an outlier. Some of my grandma’s boyfriends I am sure are worse drivers (but that is a bad argument, as they should not be on the road).
HA… for sure. A drunk killed my cousin Melissa when she was 12. It’s personal to me.
I guess what I was getting to about people being dumb is that actually enforcing DUI without a crash occurring reduces the amount of DUI crashes compared just enforcing DUI only when a crash occurs. I am sorry about your cousin.
Preemptive strike, so to speak. I think it’s very reasonable considering the danger they pose to others.
3 Likes