Printable View
This is endlessly frustrating and it's why I don't give money to people who ask me on the street.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
Perhaps the most free market approach would be for people to play No Pass Line of the drug market and take out life insurance policies on individuals they've identified as "at risk" drug users. :)
This is not unknown, but are you presenting it just to show that pot isn't as harmless as advocates say it is, or as evidence that it should be illegal? It's part of the assumed risk of using, well, anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by davsel
I would take no joy/profit in the bad things people do to themselves. I just want to be able to refuse to pay for any of it. And I don't know how that insurance model would even work... Who is paying the premiums? That would be expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
After I got married and got back on the KLR I took out a term life policy. It's a risk and I want my family taken care of. Very similar. If I turn into a speedbump, yeah, my family is going to have needs they couldn't meet without my planning. But I pay that premium.
I wouldn't demand access to your paycheck, or say my family gets any part of your paycheck, should I realize a risk that I voluntarily assumed.
What the hell, man? Keep it on the pavement and stay out of the weeds. I'm not going down that rabbit hole to figure out what you're now bringing into the conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
If whatever Montana is doing goes against federal law, then I'm not a fan. Change the flippin' law or follow it. If you don't, and get prosecuted under the full extent of the law, don't come crying to me about it. If it's finally time to break out the torches and pitchforks and throw off the manacles of tyranny, that's another story and we're not going to talk about it here.
I would love for people to have absolute freedom and do whatever they want that doesn't harm anyone else. That's the trick. Human nature often leads to selfish decisions that don't consider (or minimizes) how they may impact others. In light of trying to make sure there's a stable society, that society builds a framework that they can acceptably live by. It may encumber some freedoms while still allowing the most important elements of freedom to thrive.
I really get tired of being obligated to pay for the bad decisions of others. Wouldn't it be lovely if we didn't have to have insurance coverage for under-insured/uninsured motorists?
If you manage to live long enough and pay attention, you become familiar with the repetitive stupidity of humans making bad decisions.
...and as a friend of mine would say, "You have to respect the pattern."
I'm asking to see how consistent you are with following the rule of law and which ones. You're sounding pretty consistent so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
Dude, you live in an era where Alexandria Occasio Cortez serves in the US House of Representatives, a measurable segment of the population believes the Earth is flat, Bernie Sanders was the most popular presidential choice among Dem voters, obesity is at epidemic levels, and people believe the moon landings were faked.
I get it, you probably score pretty highly as INTJ or INTP on a Meyers Briggs test, but the bottom line is that less than 20% of the population thinks like you do, and the sooner you come to grips with that realization the better.
The only way you're divorced from the consequences is if you live in a cabin in the mountains tens or hundreds of miles away from anywhere else. And even if you are, that doesn't change the fact that there's negative externalities associated with drug use/legalization ranging from increased public intox to mental illness to increased costs to medical and law enforcement services, to fucking methed out assholes who do shit like choke out their toddler kids*.Quote:
If I'm divorced from the consequences, I don't need other humans to be rational actors. As a side note, isn't that why a lot of us here CCW? Self defense is separating ourselves from the consequences of often irrational behavior.
And that's kind of my point in consistency. Yes, I understand that means some people will die from the consequences of their actions. That's freedom to "do with my body as I choose." If the negative consequences were internalized it would serve as an example to others creating disincentive.
Look, I'm sympathetic to legalization arguments, but the bottom line is that what's happened in this state as a result of legalization has been a fucking failure for everyone who isn't a member of the Democrat party.
*Yeah, ask that little kid about being "divorced from the consequences."
Uhh Justin, pretty sure you and Skip are on the same side here.
I believe that you are correct. At least, that's the way I was reading it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
I'm arguing for a "best case" scenario while also opposing legalization in the current context of collectivism. Sorry for the confusion.
With collectivism, this is not a freedom issue.
Without collectivism, it would be BUT we have to accept that individuals will have consequences.
What's that Carlin quote about the average person. Yup. I can't fix that and neither can you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin
I can point a gun at their heads "because drugs are bad." But I'd rather just have their hands out of my wallet. If we spend all day building rubber rooms and putting people in straight jackets for their own good we'd still be living on dirt floors. We would have no time/resources for anything else having been reduced to the lowest common denominator.
This is one of the reasons public education is going to shit. It's not good for the failing kids and it's certainly not good for the kids that want to learn either. It's disastrous for society.
Denver voted for one side of this issue, but we voters are never given a say on the other side. Watch as Colorado (Denver) spends more resources on special people and dysfunction, less time on giving kids a shot at life, or keeping cost of living down for working families. Casual Dems will realize this but it will be too late.
A lot of these are timeless problems and we didn't run from them. We would have to come up with a way to protect kids, no doubt. Not sure what we can do there. Maybe that is a justification for violence against users to protect kids? And dead kids should mean dead perps--this is a big problem in itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin
What's new is the subjective morality of the political class (credit to Gman again for pointing this out and putting it succinctly). I feel that I'm held hostage economically with this.
Agree with you on the failure! That's why I oppose this in the status quo.
Great, now we'll have losers driving around even MORE stoned out of their gourds.