To Protect and to Serve...

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

It's an interesting question as to where (or at what point) it should be the government's role to step in but it kinda sidestepped the "victim" assertion, don't you think?

Not really, people make choices, then have to live with them.

The only thing the government brings to the table is force.

 

[hndog609]

Not really, people make choices, then have to live with them.

The only thing the government brings to the table is force.

But now we're back to GV's post where "victims" need not be the actual drug "user". It can be reasonably argued, I think, that the people he's trying to include aren't really involved much in the whole "choice" part of the equation.

 

[Grand Vol]

It is funny that you brought up extortion though.

I did it as a cover for nearly everything. Be it police, courts, the public, politicians. The list is rather large and no one single group is responsible.

Not really, people make choices, then have to live with them.

The only thing the government brings to the table is force.

And you still avoid the fact it affects more than just the individual.

And this BS that people are afraid to get help because they think they'll go to jail is just that. BS. Show me where anyone who voluntarily sought help (before committing a crime that is) was charged and went to jail.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

But now we're back to GV's post where "victims" need not be the actual drug "user". It can be reasonably argued, I think, that the people he's trying to include aren't really involved much in the whole "choice" part of the equation.

Then those people are free to make the choice to leave, or make the problem person leave.
The problem is when we start looking to the government for help in these situations. It never ends well.

 

[Grand Vol]

Then those people are free to make the choice to leave, or make the problem person leave.

C'mon man, really? What happens when it's a child in a home with abusing and addicted parents? Do they have that option to make their parents leave?

And don't say that's an isolated incident. You know it isn't.

The problem is when we start looking to the government for help in these situations. It never ends well.

I won't disagree government tends to be more of a problem than a solution. But this tends to be one of those situations where doing nothing is worse than doing something.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

I did it as a cover for nearly everything. Be it police, courts, the public, politicians. The list is rather large and no one single group is responsible.



And you still avoid the fact it affects more than just the individual.

And this BS that people are afraid to get help because they think they'll go to jail is just that. BS. Show me where anyone who voluntarily sought help (before committing a crime that is) was charged and went to jail.

You did it as a cover for everything because you cannot see beyond the state for solutions. I don't mean that in a bad way, most people are like that.

How about the person who is an addict that wants to get clean, then has child protective services brought down upon them? That doesn't happen? I personally know people that has happened to. Good parents, they just made some bad choices and the state took their kids. Yea state!

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

C'mon man, really? What happens when it's a child in a home with abusing and addicted parents? Do they have that option to make their parents leave?

And don't say that's an isolated incident. You know it isn't.



I won't disagree government tends to be more of a problem than a solution. But this tends to be one of those situations where doing nothing is worse than doing something.

I could see an instance where friends or family could step in, perhaps even the church.
Bringing in the the government (who only seeks revenue) into the equation make everything worse for everyone involved.

 

[hndog609]

Then those people are free to make the choice to leave, or make the problem person leave.
The problem is when we start looking to the government for help in these situations. It never ends well.

I don't know dude...that first observation sounds awfully, IDK, cavalier? At any rate is sure sounds like you're making the observation awfully painless. I have a hard time believing actually being in that situation it would seem that simple. I also think it avoids pretty much all of GV's "victim" concerns that aren't directly interpersonal. (friend/family)

Make no mistake I have grave concerns about government use of force. That doesn't mean I think you can simply dismiss the idea that certain aspects of drug use don't involve victims beyond singular users.

 

[Grand Vol]

You did it as a cover for everything because you cannot see beyond the state for solutions. I don't mean that in a bad way, most people are like that.

You and your misguided assumption I'm a statist that's always looking for the government answer. I've said time before and again, this is way too complicated just for a single government solution.

And what you can't see is the solution of legalization can (and history can show likely will) cause more problems than keeping the status quo.

How about the person who is an addict that wants to get clean, then has child protective services brought down upon them? That doesn't happen? I personally know people that has happened to. Good parents, they just made some bad choices and the state took their kids. Yea state!

Did they get their kids back when it was all said and done? Ever been around someone who's getting treatment and going through withdrawals? You think that's a good place for kids to be?

And I'm willing to bet that happens far less than parents who choose to do nothing and continue to harm those around them. (that's a victim in case you were wondering)

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

For the record the parents I knew were pot smokers. Alabama has a very dim view of people that smoke plants.

 

[Grand Vol]

I could see an instance where friends or family could step in, perhaps even the church.
Bringing in the the government (who only seeks revenue) into the equation make everything worse for everyone involved.

I would agree that civic groups and family might be a better option in the long run than government intervention. However, I don't think government should be totally removed from the equation. Because there can come a time where the person cannot be guided by those groups and a higher intervention would be in order.

 

[Grand Vol]

For the record the parents I knew were pot smokers. Alabama has a very dim view of people that smoke plants.

Why do I feel there is likely more to the story than you let on...

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

I would agree that civic groups and family might be a better option in the long run than government intervention. However, I don't think government should be totally removed from the equation. Because there can come a time where the person cannot be guided by those groups and a higher intervention would be in order.

You just proved yourself a statist right there.

Anyway.

Why the need for higher intervention? If the person is violent would they not be violating the law with their violence upon another?
Then criminalize that behavior, and hold them accountable for that. Not the drug use.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Why do I feel there is likely more to the story than you let on...

Kid has friends over, parents step out back to have a smoke.
Friend wonders why the parents are "acting funny" goes home tells his parents who notify the police. Police show up with a search warrant, find a 1/4 bag of weed. Parents go to jail, kids get put in cps care.
Did they make poor choices? Yeah. Did they deserve to be arrested in front of their kids by guys with guns pointed at their parents? Hell no.

 

[Grand Vol]

You just proved yourself a statist right there.

lulz

Anyone who doesn't subscribe to your Utopian theory of government is a statist. Even with how far fetched it truly is.

Why the need for higher intervention? If the person is violent would they not be violating the law with their violence upon another?
Then criminalize that behavior, and hold them accountable for that. Not the drug use.

Visiting their violence on others would be making victims of others, no? Just checking...

The behavior is criminalized. Whether substances are involved is a contributing factor.

But what happens when the family, friends or civic groups can't control said individual any longer? Or they become a threat to themselves or others? At what point might a higher intervention be necessary in your world?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

GV, I too was a statist at one point. I became an anarchist when I realized, anything the government can do, the free market can do better.
I'd say a good 90% of the population of this country are statists. It's a scary thought.

 

[Grand Vol]

GV, I too was a statist at one point. I became an anarchist when I realized, anything the government can do, the free market can do better.
I'd say a good 90% of the population of this country is statists. It's a scary thought.

As I said, anyone who doesn't believe in your form of society is a statist.

But I would agree generally the free market can do a better job than government. (generally cheaper too) There are some areas where the free market isn't up to the task, defense for example.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

As I said, anyone who doesn't believe in your form of society is a statist.

But I would agree generally the free market can do a better job than government. (generally cheaper too) There are some areas where the free market isn't up to the task, defense for example.

I don't use violence to solve my problems bro.

Defense from what exactly? If we had a foreign policy of non intervention we wouldn't have to be worried about terrorists under our beds. Seems to work well for the Swiss.

Anyway, back on point.
If the drug user uses violence against someone, yes that's illegal. He should be cited for the violence, not the drug possession.
How many times have drunks beaten their family members? Guess what, alcohol is still legal.

Oh btw, if you place all the guns and decision making power in the hands of government, then tell them to limit themselves, it's you who are the utopian.
That's from Murray Rothbard btw

 

[Grand Vol]

I don't use violence to solve my problems bro.

Defense from what exactly? If we had a foreign policy of non intervention we wouldn't have to be worried about terrorists under our beds. Seems to work well for the Swiss.

You do realize the Swiss have armed forces. And State controlled.

And a darn good system of citizen-soldier reserves for the most part if you ask me.

Anyway, back on point.
If the drug user uses violence against someone, yes that's illegal. He should be cited for the violence, not the drug possession.
How many times have drunks beaten their family members? Guess what, alcohol is still legal.

So what is the crime? Using alcohol/controlled substance or the assault?

And what contributes to that? Now before you go off, yes, there are violent people that will visit violence being completely sober (no police references or giggles here please) and they need to be dealt with. But when a drug, be it alcohol or illegal, contributes to a person's unlawful behavior, it needs to be taken into account.

Oh btw, if you place all the guns and decision making power in the hands of government, then tell them to limit themselves, it's you who are the utopian.
That's from Murray Rothbard btw

Can you please show me where I think we should surrender all our decision making ability to the government? I think you'll find me one of the biggest proponents on here of a lack of government intervention in anything.

But saying that to say this, there does come a time where the People need to have the ability to turn to their government for help if they request it. Unfortunately, that's turned into the Government making preemptive choices for the People because it believes the People can't think for themselves. And the People have voluntarily surrendered that power away.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

You do realize the Swiss have armed forces. And State controlled.
I was speaking of the Swiss ability to stay neutral in world affairs.
And a darn good system of citizen-soldier reserves for the most part if you ask me.



So what is the crime? Using alcohol/controlled substance or the assault?
The assault is the crime.
The drug or beer didn't assault anyone. By taking this stance are you not giving credence to the liberal tactic of blaming gun manufactures in shootings?

And what contributes to that? Now before you go off, yes, there are violent people that will visit violence being completely sober (no police references or giggles here please) and they need to be dealt with. But when a drug, be it alcohol or illegal, contributes to a person's unlawful behavior, it needs to be taken into account.



Can you please show me where I think we should surrender all our decision making ability to the government? I think you'll find me one of the biggest proponents on here of a lack of government intervention in anything.

But saying that to say this, there does come a time where the People need to have the ability to turn to their government for help if they request it. Unfortunately, that's turned into the Government making preemptive choices for the People because it believes the People can't think for themselves. And the People have voluntarily surrendered that power away.

Those who believe in limited government never really understand where placing their faith in this system gets them in the long run. You end up with our current system. We're force by threat of cage or a gun to comply to the arbitrary commands made by politicians. The kicker is, most Americans don't trust other people, but they'll gladly place all their faith in the government, who is made up of what? People. The irony is thick.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Side note. I really need to learn to use this forums functions better since I've been posting more in the last year or so. Lol

 

[Grand Vol]

Side note. I really need to learn to use this forums functions better since I've been posting more in the last year or so. Lol

Control C/Control P DEFENDTHISHOUSE

[/quote ]

Done

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Simple question, do you believe the people have the right to overthrow the government?


For the record, I'm speaking of more of a evolution of thought than a violent revolution.

 

[Grand Vol]

I was speaking of the Swiss ability to stay neutral in world affairs.

I understood that. But they still have an armed force for a reason.

The assault is the crime.
The drug or beer didn't assault anyone. By taking this stance are you not giving credence to the liberal tactic of blaming gun manufactures in shootings?

Missed entirely what I was saying. Don't take the example I used and put it out of context. The assault is the crime. The contributing factor was the substance. Because substances can alter a person's way of thinking to make them capable of doing such things.

So in this case, the factors have to be taken into consideration as well as the crime.

Those who believe in limited government never really understand where placing their faith in this system gets them in the long run. You end up with our current system. We're force by threat of cage or a gun to comply to the arbitrary commands made by politicians. The kicker is, most Americans don't trust other people, but they'll gladly place all their faith in the government, who is made up of what? People. The irony is thick.

Each and every governmental system gets corrupted eventually. Even your anarcho-capitalist society would eventually reach a point where it couldn't be controlled.

 

[Grand Vol]

Simple question, do you believe the people have the right to overthrow the government?

For the record, I'm speaking of more of a evolution of thought than a violent revolution.

I think in both cases the People can and should rise up against a sitting government if they believe their cause is just.

Revolutions can be violent or non-violent. They typically are violent, especially for those deposed from power. I wouldn't be here today if I didn't think people should overthrow their government. Or I'd likely be talking with a funny accent and calling trucks "lorries" before I went to the loo.

Which is why I'm hateful of the way the education system portrays the Civil War (War of Northern Aggression if you will) since it was the Confederate States revolting against the central government and attempting to start over. It wasn't all about slavery as the powers that be like people to think. But rather because of a multitude of reasons. Most of which were centered around the Federal Government.