This couldn't open any ugly doors now, could it?
Posted by deleted 8 years, 6 months ago to News
If you think we have too many moochers in the world now, just wait.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
In an Objectivist society, drug use would be an open choice, with those choosing a self destructive path taking themselves to an early grave without interference. We aren't yet participants in such a society, so I try address these things in the real world for the time being.
Would more people become addicted if it was legal? Maybe maybe not, but I'm not sure it's our business. It's certainly harder to imagine a worse result than the one we currently live with.
I suspect that drug usage would look the same after legalization.
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/10-geni...
Or you wait until the day is more productive.
http://www.idmu.co.uk/hemployment.htm
There have been articles, as the one cited in the UK study that purport to the conclusion that if you make enough money, you can be a productive, successful addict, even with heroin. However, if we look at the most forgiving segment of our American society, Hollywood, excessive drug use quickly leads to unemployment, due to the unreliability of the addict. Robert Downey Jr. is a prime example, since even his Oscar-winning portrayal of Charlie Chaplin couldn't offset his erratic behavior. Downey rescued himself by kicking the habit and begging for the role of Tony Stark (Ironman).
Some drugs should be kept out of the legal market (meth, LSD, PCP, for starters), so a more focused "war on drugs" will still be needed.
We had the best way out of that and it failed. So I opt for whatever class is hiring in whatever system on top for my next go round. This one was a waste of time and effort.
Assuming you can afford my rates.
Professional Soldiers point of view.
No nation has lasted 200 years without getting an elitist ruling class and all the trimmings no matter what the first theory or plan might have been.
Invariably the general public gave them the power. ergo sum why not start working for someone at the top? But never forget one is working for oneself.
That's an answer that covers all possibilities as long as humans are humans are humans. Humans can't handle the responsibility of freedom.
Just to throw some gas on the fire. But as for following an ideology. What I just said comes closer than anything yet proposed.
As for following the rules or even working together for a common cause? Maybe for five minutes.
.
Objectivism recognizes that reality, and therefore the target group is always 1. Objectivists are free to group in larger numbers for things they agree on, like everyone else. But always based on 1, not many.
Until the United States was formed, the idea of bottom up government, focused first on the individual was non-existent. The idea of a society made up of self reliant individuals should have been the next logical step, but humans are truly amazing in their ability to screw up a good idea.
We need to be very clear on our principles, and then do all that we can to shout those principles from the rooftops. Let Freedom Ring. I think that a well-articulated position that it is not the business of government to protect adults from the consequences of their choices would resonate with a lot of people.
War on drugs?...you know the rest. Frankly, I don't take any drugs - just aspirin. But, more and more, I find myself in favor of this kind of thing. Why? Because if somebody wants to take a drug they'll take a drug. America puts more people in prison, per capita, than anybody and much of that is drug related. I, believe it or not, am not convinced drug use will go up with legalization.
The only real problem I have is our penchant to take from the producers and give to the moochers. That won't work out really well with this. If we were willing to let the weak blow themselves out while not emptying our wallets to prop them up I see a lot of promise here. I also personally know several people who self-medicate with weed, vs. prescription psych meds...and they are much better off for it. Make no mistake, big pharma absolutely hates that. And THAT is the only reason the Feds (with Stoner O at the helm) are standing fast on this Federal ban.
I drink wine about every-other night. I don't think what I do is any better than people I know, good family people, who spark up a joint after putting the kids to bed. That's not my thing, at all.
Too much government...
Let's see if I can do this from memory.."Well you have to understand they come from a deprived childhood with no self esteem and it's our duty to ....."
Now this other system is also from memory. "Bang"
The Third Eye will certainly give the ability to see more clearly - visual acuity is everything. And clear the cells for others. Elegant solution and the tax money can go to other more needy causes. What was your next 'how about?'
Right now I can't think of a better way to end my time on earth.
Yes. It not only wastes money but undermines the whole concept of the law.