Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

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)

I didn't assume that you are against the liberalization of weapons, I was just curious about your opinion on that subject. So that's an assumption on your part, that was wrong.

Maybe you don't oppose solidarity directly, you just prefer a system where it doesn't really exist. But yes, we all know about that idea, that instead of taxation, people should give money to charity funds, which will maintain a minarchic state. It has already been written in this forum a few times. :D

You can deny all you want, but that doesn't change reality. :)

government determine that in democraty. People chose his government in democraty
People are voting to change laws. It seems to me pretty simple.

But that has no argumentation value. None. The majority decided that. Et alors? Than marrying two gays is also an 'obvious criminal behavior' in a lot of democratic countries. I disagree with that, because the law can be voted by a majority, that does not make it right or legitimate.

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.

The role of lonely people is the role they want to. Live and let live.

I do not try to change people's vote. Voting is pointless. The lesser evil is still evil.

Because people are monsters. That is basically your argumentation. Fine for me, but you have to understand that such an argumentation is without any value.

The right on one's own body and the directly related rights: the right to live, the right on physical integrity, the right on property, ...

No. People are people. :)

I think let sell some drugs is a danger for the right on a physical integrity. Because of drug's dependance.

But that has no argumentation value. None. The majority decided that. Et alors? Than marrying two gays is also an 'obvious criminal behavior' in a lot of democratic countries. I disagree with that, because the law can be voted by a majority, that does not make it right or legitimate.

What does make something legitimate? You?
In France marrinyg two gays was no legal. But people voted and Président Hollande, François neederland :=), make it legal. That the way of life. Time is needed.

the law can be voted by a majority
Perhaps it's better when the law is voted by a minority ... by a only man ...
Perhaps it's better if there is no law . But i understood you were not an anarchist ...

(edited)

Selling drugs is not a danger to physical integrity. Using drugs is, but harming your own physical integrity can obviously never be a crime. Killing yourself is not a crime, living unhealthy is not a crime, using drugs is not a crime, ... Everyone is the owner of his or her own body, and you can do with it what you want.

Drugs are indeed addictive and make you dependent on them. But you have the choice to not use them.

Something is legitimate when it enforces the liberty of individuals. Something is illegitimate if it destroys individual liberty. A law that enforces openness in government for instance is legitimate. A law prohibiting the sale of drugs is not.

And no, I don't want a minority to vote. I want a freedom-based constitution, and after that, all laws should be passed with a 95% majority (a referendum, and not just 95% of the votes, 95% of the electorate) on two separate occasions, in order to make change possible but very hard.

And yes, it would be better if there were no laws at all, if there was no government. But because of the human nature, government is necessary. A necessary evil.

Extreme-liberalism and fascism has a lot in common

That's a joke? Fascism is a left variant, part of a socialism. Liberalism is a rightist. That's a two different options.

Is this leftist-rightist distinction supposed to be a joke? Ideologies have many aspects, you cannot describe them in 2 dimensions. It's like thinking only in black and white or in good and evil.

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

Willem naar Charles Hill
I have no idea what you're talking about.

Are you sure??

You come online almost everyday, but you haven't done a thing with your team, no transfers and no change in tactics, only forum posts. As if the forum is the only thing you signed up for. Also the kind of posts and use of words reminds me of someone.

And then the answer 'I have no idea what you're talking about.' without a 'why', that's also a bit strange ....

This is going to be really awkward if he really doesn't have an idea :)

all laws should be passed with a 95% majority (a referendum, and not just 95% of the votes, 95% of the electorate)

If this idea was on air 200 years ago ... People voted then for no gay marriage at 95%.
And so after that ... it will never be removed because there were never 95% voting for gay marriage.
At the same, Humans rights were 200 years ago, only men rights and never woman could have her actually rigths.

Your idea is not evolutive. And society is evolutive: it's a problem don't you think?

True :) I can be wrong ofcourse, and as a matter of fact I really hope I am wrong ;)
(edited)