Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-02-2013, 05:57 PM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
(27-02-2013 10:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-02-2013 10:44 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "Please reconcile for me how you can be anti-state but not
anti-regulation. A regulation is meaningless without the means of
enforcement."


Consumer advocacy groups provide a form of regulation in that they test products and report their findings. A lot of them exist today and in the absence of the state a lot more of them would exist. Insurance companies provide a form of hard regulation, in the manner I spoke of above. Law courts can exist in the absence of the state and in fact, law courts worked very well in England, without the state, for about six hundred years after the Magna Carta was accepted by the monarchy.

So no, I'm not against regulation at all. I'm not against government either. What I'm against is the initiation of violence and coercion.

Regulation is coercion.

What is violence? Is assessing a fine violence? Is putting someone in jail violence?
Sorry, bbeljefe, you just got owned.
[Image: slapp_zps905ac017.gif]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 06:59 PM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
"Regulation is coercion."

It is when it is accompanied by the threat of violence.

"What is violence? Is assessing a fine violence? Is putting someone in jail violence?"

Violence. And to be exact, I said the initiation of violence. That means, using violence against someone who has not used violence against you. Assessing fines isn't violence unless the fine is to be enforced by initiating violence or, unless the fine is levied against someone who hasn't harmed another person. Jailing someone who hasn't committed violence is violence.

Obviously, third party self defense, threats of violence or behavior that endangers people are all gray areas and I won't discuss them in this thread because that's a subject in and of itself. That's not to say they are vague or difficult to understand. I just don't want to go a' thread jacking and that could happen pretty easy at this point.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 07:04 PM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
"No. I am a communist."

Oh, okay. Then my question stands. Communism is a form of statism and in a statist society, a small group of people make the rules that the masses must follow.

You can call the leaders of the communist state anything you like. Marx had some nice words for them and that's fine. But in the end, they are rulers and you, if you're not one of them, are a slave.

So again, why give them a pass?

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 08:22 PM
Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
(27-02-2013 07:04 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "No. I am a communist."

Oh, okay. Then my question stands. Communism is a form of statism and in a statist society, a small group of people make the rules that the masses must follow.

You can call the leaders of the communist state anything you like. Marx had some nice words for them and that's fine. But in the end, they are rulers and you, if you're not one of them, are a slave.

So again, why give them a pass?

Which class controls the state for its benefit is the issue. Under capitalism the minority capitalists control the state under communism the workers control the state for its benefit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 08:58 PM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
(27-02-2013 08:22 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(27-02-2013 07:04 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "No. I am a communist."

Oh, okay. Then my question stands. Communism is a form of statism and in a statist society, a small group of people make the rules that the masses must follow.

You can call the leaders of the communist state anything you like. Marx had some nice words for them and that's fine. But in the end, they are rulers and you, if you're not one of them, are a slave.

So again, why give them a pass?

Which class controls the state for its benefit is the issue. Under capitalism the minority capitalists control the state under communism the workers control the state for its benefit.

Except there has never been a communist state that met that definition. Not one.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
27-02-2013, 09:59 PM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
"Under capitalism the minority capitalists control the state under communism the workers control the state for its benefit."

It worked like that in the manifesto but in practice, that isn't the case. But in any event, it's not coercion that you have a problem with, it's who's coercing who. Is that correct?

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 11:56 PM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
(27-02-2013 05:17 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(26-02-2013 08:11 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I made no such claim, however you did make yours and now that you've been called out you are desperately trying to deflect. Back your shit up or concede and shut up.

No fucktard, you see, you made the stupid and laughably retarded assumption that there ever was a " free" market that ever existed. Only stupid people believe that once upon a time in magic land there was a market that was free and not corrupted by the governmental system.

I will leave this forum forever if you name ONE FUCKING EXAMPLE of any instance in history where the market was not involved with government in modern history.
Okay wiener-face (since we're name-calling now), I know no such thing ever existed. However no communist country has even came close to this, not in the same ballpark, not even in the same galaxy. Something you claimed to exist. Get it together. By the way I find it extremely bizarre that such a paranoid person such as yourself would proudly boast the would LIKE to have a "Marxist" type of governance.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 12:35 AM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
"I will leave this forum forever if you name ONE FUCKING EXAMPLE of any
instance in history where the market was not involved with government in
modern history."

In the early 17th century when the Europeans established Jamestown, their trade structure had no involvement with the state. There were no regulations and no tariffs. The freedom they enjoyed ushered in the industrial revolution and it wasn't until about a century later that the Monarchy saw the wealth that was being created and decided to take a bite of the pie.

Just imagine the wealth that could have been created for everyone had they not believed in slavery, murdering natives and denying women property rights. And of course, had the King not ascended upon them with taxation. Hell, we might have even been so lucky as to have avoided the abomination of liberty that is the US Constitution.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 08:55 AM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
(28-02-2013 12:35 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  "I will leave this forum forever if you name ONE FUCKING EXAMPLE of any
instance in history where the market was not involved with government in
modern history."

In the early 17th century when the Europeans established Jamestown, their trade structure had no involvement with the state. There were no regulations and no tariffs. The freedom they enjoyed ushered in the industrial revolution and it wasn't until about a century later that the Monarchy saw the wealth that was being created and decided to take a bite of the pie.

Just imagine the wealth that could have been created for everyone had they not believed in slavery, murdering natives and denying women property rights. And of course, had the King not ascended upon them with taxation. Hell, we might have even been so lucky as to have avoided the abomination of liberty that is the US Constitution.
Is your main example actually Jamestown and similar lands? Where the population suffered and died due to lack of proper protection from the environment and a adequate food supply?

Okay, I see you mean the colonies in general... which did work out more but from beginning, when there was no taxation on any supplied goods, the early colonies like Jamestown suffered. It was later when the markets were populated enough to turn in the crops of tobacco and other goods that made them survive. Still in the start with Jamestowns, some reports note that the settlement was in disarray in all regards until it's governor demanded everyone start growing a certain amount of tobacco to make profits.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2013, 10:56 AM
RE: Arguments for the prohibition of drugs
Pfft, don't care, I'll take it. I&I go back to watching Doomsday Preppers in your tin-foil hat for tips on surviving the Nazi Alien invasion.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: