Azərbaycan dili Bahasa Indonesia Bosanski Català Čeština Dansk Deutsch Eesti English Español Français Galego Hrvatski Italiano Latviešu Lietuvių Magyar Malti Mакедонски Nederlands Norsk Polski Português Português BR Românã Slovenčina Srpski Suomi Svenska Tiếng Việt Türkçe Ελληνικά Български Русский Українська Հայերեն ქართული ენა 中文
Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
 Topic closed!!!

Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

2014-12-07 01:05:08
You seem to assume that I agree with the fact that it is forbidden to have most weapons. I oppose that. It is stupid to forbid weapons. The only result of that is that only two categories have weapons: cops and criminals. Not a good idea.

I want criminals to be tackled because criminals violate other people's right on liberty. I do not consider drug dealers or weapon smugglers to be criminals because of their profession. They might be, but not because of their profession.
2014-12-07 11:15:24
I want criminals to be tackled because criminals violate other people's right on liberty. I do not consider drug dealers or weapon smugglers to be criminals because of their profession. They might be, but not because of their profession.

What? These acts are against the law and that makes them clearly criminals. To come up with your own description of criminals doesn't make these people not criminals :/

And who are you? When I read your posts I get a déjà vu ...
2014-12-07 11:59:04
:)
2014-12-07 12:14:28
What? These acts are against the law and that makes them clearly criminals. To come up with your own description of criminals doesn't make these people not criminals :/

It's a different philosophical point of view. The law is only a piece of paper, nothing more. Breaking an unjust law is in my opinion not a crime (in contrary), even if the criminal law defines the act as a crime. You take a legalistic approach (the law defines who is a criminal and who is not), I don't. In my opinion, the laws of our parliament do not matter in a philosophical / political discussion. Drug dealing is not a crime, it is simply creating a supply for a product that has a certain demand. Drug dealing by itself is merely an economic activity.

Of course, a lot of those drug dealers use violence and that is of course criminal behavior. But the fact that one is a drug dealer, does not mean he is a criminal.

And who are you? When I read your posts I get a déjà vu ...

I have no idea what you're talking about.
2014-12-07 12:30:16
Drug dealing is not a crime
Of course, and drug dealing to childs too, in the same logic ...
I understand your point of view but it's perhaps a bit restrictive because the economic thing is nothing without the social thing. As i mind.

edited because i think thing (good song what ever) but i wrote think. Both are true, isn't it?



(edited)
2014-12-07 12:43:34
Eeuhh :/


Movie Blow, quote:

Judge: George Jung, you stand accused of possession of six hundred and sixty pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute. How do you plead?

George: Your honor, I'd like to say a few words to the court if I may.

Judge: Well, you're gonna have to stop slouching and stand up to address this court, sir.

George: [stands] Alright. Well, in all honesty, I don't feel that what I've done is a crime. And I think it's illogical and irresponsible for you to sentence me to prison. Because, when you think about it, what did I really do? I crossed an imaginary line with a bunch of plants. I mean, you say I'm an outlaw, you say I'm a thief, but where's the Christmas dinner for the people on relief? Huh? You say you're looking for someone who's never weak but always strong, to gather flowers constantly whether you are right or wrong, someone to open each and every door, but it ain't me, babe, huh? No, no, no, it ain't me, babe. It ain't me you're looking for, babe. You follow?

Judge: Yeah... Gosh, you know, your concepts are really interesting, Mister Jung.

George: Thank you.

Judge: Unfortunately for you, the line you crossed was real and the plants you brought with you were illegal, so your bail is twenty thousand dollars.
2014-12-07 13:04:59
So for you, the law is always right? Everyone who breaks the law is a criminal? I accept the democratic result, but that does not mean that from a philosophical point of view, I must agree with it. The majority is not always right.
2014-12-07 13:11:36
Of course, and drug dealing to childs too, in the same logic ...

That is correct. It is morally questionable (obviously), but it is in my opinion not a crime.

I understand your point of view but it's perhaps a bit restrictive because the economic thing is nothing without the social thing. As i mind.

The economics is not the core. Legalizing drug use, drug dealing and drug production IS the social thing. It is morally the right thing to do, but there is another argument. If you want the government to play an important role in the drug sector (regulation, quality standards, countering the violence that happens in that sector, ...), then legalization is the only possible solution. You cannot regulate something that is illegal. Making it illegal is pushing the users into the arms of people with bad intentions. Drug prohibition is an absurd policy that has never worked, does not work and will never work.

So even if you disagree with my moral point of view, there are no arguments to not legalize drugs (and I mean all drugs: going from marijuana over cocaine to heroine).
2014-12-07 13:15:00
For me it is not the question if the law is right or wrong but how you can come up with such ideas, opinions, or whatever you want to call it. I'm just amazed about that opinion of yours when it comes to obvious criminal behavior.
(edited)
2014-12-07 13:31:00
You cannot regulate something that is illegal
But government doesn't want to regulate those drugs! I just want regulate drugs as tabbaco or alcohol ...
But drugs you talk about are not to be (for some goverments) regulated but, eradicated.

In your mind ... rape could be legalized to better be regulated?

To my knowledge there is nowadays large viable anarchy society. The anarchy seems to me, like an utopia.
2014-12-07 13:36:02
Extreme-liberalism and fascism has a lot in common, if you think about it. The primary principle is that the strong shall survive and the weak shall die. The goal is common, the method is the opposite of course. Fascists would kill the "weak" in government concentration camps, extreme-liberals would kill them by non-governmental organizations, they call "economics" (like by drug industry). You can die because of the drugs, but it's only the individuals responsibility. So the strong will resist, the weak will die. And contrary to fascism, there won't be a board of persons who will decide who can survive, instead an abstract thing, like "market" will do it.

I think this "only the strong shall survive" logic is flawed, even if we ignore morality. Strength / weakness is not constant, it's rather a state of a person, which changes by time. Many people who is considered weak has a high potential, and some of them could reach it eventually, but they need to have the opportunity, which doesn't exists without some form of solidarity.
2014-12-07 13:38:55
But how do you determine that drug dealing is 'obvious criminal behavior'? Now your answer will be 'the law says so'. That is not an argument. It is simply stating something that is not relevant.

For instance, in some (democratic!) countries, gays are discriminated. Why? Because the law says so. I disagree with such laws, and I can defend why such laws are immoral, and why people who violate anti-gay laws are not criminals. Apparently, you can't or you don't want to do that.
2014-12-07 13:43:49
But government doesn't want to regulate those drugs! I just want regulate drugs as tabbaco or alcohol ...
But drugs you talk about are not to be (for some goverments) regulated but, eradicated.


And no war on drugs has ever worked. Even if you want to reduce the usage of such drugs, legalizing them is the only possible solution. Completely eradicating those drugs will never be completed. But if you can keep the usage at the same level but with fewer violence and deaths (because of the improved quality), why not? It is still better than the current situation in most countries. The social cost of the war on drugs is gigantic, look at the United States if you want an example.

In your mind ... rape could be legalized to better be regulated?

No, because rape is always a violation of somebody's unalienable rights. Why do anti-drug legalization people always have to compare legalizing drugs with legalizing rape? That really shows there are no arguments left.

To my knowledge there is nowadays large viable anarchy society. The anarchy seems to me, like an utopia.

I agree. That's why I'm not an anarchist.
2014-12-07 13:49:42
Extreme-liberalism and fascism has a lot in common, if you think about it.

Not really. Not even close. Actually, that so-called 'extreme'-liberalism is the complete opposite of fascism. It has nothing in common.

The primary principle is that the strong shall survive and the weak shall die.

Nope. That really has nothing to do with so-called 'extreme'-liberalism.

extreme-liberals would kill them by non-governmental organizations, they call "economics" (like by drug industry).

Unless you use an absurd definition of 'killing', this is also completely untrue. 'Extreme'-liberals don't want anybody to be killed. They just want to live in liberty. Live free or die. Give me liberty or give me death.

You can die because of the drugs, but it's only the individuals responsibility.

Stating the obvious. If you made the choice to use drugs, and if those drugs killed you, it's that individual's responsibility that he or she died. Nobody killed that individual. Drugs killed that individual. And that individual had made its choice.

I think this "only the strong shall survive" logic is flawed, even if we ignore morality. Strength / weakness is not constant, it's rather a state of a person, which changes by time. Many people who is considered weak has a high potential, and some of them could reach it eventually, but they need to have the opportunity, which doesn't exists without some form of solidarity.

You seem to assume that I oppose solidarity. Another assumption of yours that is wrong.
2014-12-07 13:50:30
But how do you determine that drug dealing is 'obvious criminal behavior'?
government determine that in democraty. People chose his government in democraty
People are voting to change laws. It seems to me pretty simple.

What is role of lonely people in this system?
It's what you try: explain and convince others people to change their opinions for .. a new vote.
The matter (we could have to not respect the law) is not a matter in democraty as i mind.
2014-12-07 13:54:11
I'm not an anti-drug legalization and i didn't known those people use "rape" example .
I just ask you if you think rape could be legalized because i didn't simply not if you could answer "yes"!
I am pretty happy with yours answers.
I begin better to understand your way of thinking.

Could you explain what you mind with: "somebody's unalienable rights" ?
(edited)