🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2eqj67$iju@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, dysart@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mitchell D Dysart) writes:
> In article <2epvuo$hp2@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> fchloupe@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Frank R Chloupek) writes:
>>
>>BY such a rationale, one should be allowed to...
>>
>>Own any and all weaponry:  guns, explosives, etc.
> ----Well, in times of peace and harmony, this does seem absurd.  But if
>     the government ever goes off of the deep end, or is unable to protect
>     you or your family, I'm sure you would be one of the first to
>     obtain whatever weapons you needed.

I don't like guns.  I have never owned one and probably never will.

As for the other responses, it seems that the answers are logical and coherent.
I don't necessarily buy the "the state can do what it wants on its own
property" point since I would contend that the state is a reflection of the
populace and that property of the state is actually that held in common by the
individuals.

>>If you want to operate on libertarian principles, you have to go the whole 
>>9 yards.
> 
> ----Obviously you are just plain wrong.  You can pick  and choose principles,
>     some socialist, some capitalist, some libertarian, some authortarian.  In
>     fact, I think a major problem with finding solutions to these problems is
>     the idea that you can't have a system taking good points from each way of
>     thinking.

But you must have a competing principle to use as well.  If you hold the 
freedom of the individual as sacrosanct then so long as no other person 
is hurt, all actions must be allowed.  I myself integrate a number of 
principles into my thinking and try to hold none as absolute.  The statement
made was something on the order of action should anoly be illegal when they
involve force or fraud.  When you state an absolute it is an absolute.

What other principles do you use in your lawmaking?

>>The original post, however, did not speak to drug legalization on libertarian 
>>principles.  It said we have a lot of drug related crime, why don't we 
>>legalize drugs.  IMHO, the mere fact that a law is being broken is not 
>>sufficient reason to eliminate it.
> 
> ----As author of the original post, I assure you it was based at least in part
>     on libertarian principles.  I am libertarian in a large number of ways.
>     But I also think that rampant libertarianism overlooks many things, not
>     the least of which is "no man is an island" and tends to come up with a
>     sub-optimal solution.  By the way, I didn't say legalize drugs because
>     the drug laws were being broken.  I said we should _consider_ legalizing
>     drugs because most violent crime is directly related to the fact that
>     drugs themselves are illegal.

and I still think that that is not a legitimate reason to look at legalization.

There are reasons to look at legalization and I am not 100% opposed to
legalization.  Tobacco, alcohol, caffenie, and possibly marijuana have effects
which are sufficiently minor and pose only a minor threat to oneself and others
that the loss of freedom incurred through criminalizing (or keeping them
criminal) is more of a threat.

Frank

P.S>  I'm likely as much of a libertarian as you :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank R. Chloupek                      CHLOUPEK@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu 
Department of Physics -- *The* Ohio State University
(Not just any Ohio State University) 

"Tea was one of the ten daily meals eaten during the nineteenth century 
when it was fashionable to be fat (the other nine were breakfast, elevenses
, lunch, luncheon, tiffin, high tea, dinner, supper, and midnight snack).  
Tea is still popular in Washington, D.C., where any sort of useless and 
silly activity can always find a place."	   	   --P.J. O'Rourke

TC(v1.12) T6C3L2w (h(+)++(hl-) a+v w+ y e+ f? t+(1-10) k s-- q-