🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

>Possess any form of pornography (not to produce, but to own)
----Why not?  I believe this should be a protected 1st amendment right.
    Certainly, there are victims of pornography trade.  But I think
    it's scarier for the government to be allowed to confiscate computer
    equipment for a public-access BBoard system just because somebody
    has uploaded some [currently offensive] .gif file.  Basically, it
    comes down to the government deciding what information you may or
    may not possess.  And what, you may ask, should we do about the
    exploited groups (such as children)?  Vigorously prosecute the
    exploiters.  As for obsenity that is produced contractually
    between consenting adults and distributed to adults, I don't believe
    there should be any legal limitations (moral limitations not
    withstanding), and any argument that such material increases violence
    or other such things does nothing to convince me to change my mind.

>Operate cars or other machinery while intoxicated (so long as no one is hurt)
----On your own private property, yes.  On public property, no.  The state
    has every right to make conditions on the use of its publicly owned
    highway system.

>Drive at whatever speed they want to.
----Same as above (in fact, this is already implemented on racetracks, right?)

>
>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.

>
>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.