It would have been more accurate (pleasurable to subjective judgments such as ours?) to say 'If you believe self government is legitimate.' I thought that was more off-putting, because I wasn't talking to a 'you' and saying 'If one believes...' makes people think I think I'm Confucius. I just put the 'if' because I don't intend to decide for others what they believe, though I do think some things are so obvious everyone ought to believe them.
Once self-government has been adopted, I think it's interesting to look around at things like that in terms of the non-aggression principle. If it leads to conclusions that don't make sense, one mustn't adopt them. But if I own myself, and I don't like force and fraud, I won't like things that make me feel bad. If they make me feel good but then destroy my life, I don't want them.
Wow, yeah I guess so, it's not necessarily, in that there isn't a right to not be sold crack in the Constitution or studies of natural law. But being fraudulent to somebody is wrong. People get an idea that crack is better than no crack. But it's not true. How do they get that idea? Sometimes it's from fraud - somebody wants to profit selling crack so they lie.
Yeah cages are bad, Ron Paul is right that we need focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. But in the same sense that it's really against what I want for a person to be drunk and next to me talking, it's bad for communities to have crack. People don't want it when they are trying to succeed. It pollutes the environment!
This discussion reminds me:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/...ews/rand-paul/
But they are defrauded. It's not good for them!
I see what you mean, people are going to do it even though more and more money is spent trying to stop it with bigger police toys. It's still hard to believe that it's not stopping some of it, and why not make things better?
As long as people are defrauded, and have the wrongheaded belief that crack is better than no crack, at least minimize the crime that results from it? Like, come to our rehab center voluntarily, and we will give you a free dose of crack. Then a smaller and smaller dose as we ostracize your usage until we don't give you any, but we'll feed you and love you.' Much less turf war and violence, robbery?
I think you're right that from the perspective of annoying legal proofs and philosophical sound reasoning and semantic squabble my statement isn't good. But if good is white people arguing about semantics I don't want to be good.
Thinking about the way the temporary feeling of drugs defrauds people into believing it's better than not using them, and the way people who are addicted do the drugs even after they say they don't want to, makes me think of how interesting the non-aggression principle is on many levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
I feel like I've heard that often enough to believe it must have happened to some extent, but I've never researched it. But the same applies to crack dealers.
I like you, enlarged kneecaps and all.
Connect With Us