🚀 go-pugleaf

It ain't the Bill of Needs, it's the Bill of Rights.  Government exisits for
the purpose of protecting the rights of the people, which are not dependent on
demonstrating a 19-year-old bride's NEED for a glass of champagne at her
wedding reception.  The only one the government has a right to punish is the
one who violates somebody's rights.  Let that one learn that actions have
consequences.

Tom Alciere

mowen wrote:

> Hackman <"hacker(nospam)"@jump.nospam.net> wrote after:
>
> > Matt Walcoff wrote:
> > >
> > > But you see we're not debating whether or not people should drink. In
> > > a perfect world, there might not be alcohol. But the fact is people,
> > > including people under 21, do drink. The question is how to reduce the
> > > harm of people drinking.
>
> > why do yuo feel that in a perfect world, there wouldn't be alcohol ?
> > The need of man to alter his conscience is universal...heck, I should
> > have said animal and not man, for this is something that isn't limitted
> > to just man...watch a cat sometimes with catnip.....
>
> I'm not aware of any such universal need... perhaps I missed something.
>
> "I fear animals regard man as a creature of their own kind which has in a
> highly dangerous fashion lost its healthy animal reason...." Friedrich
> Nietzsche (1887).
>
> I don't know about your universal cat, but my cat "needed" water,
> and liked catnip; and I will admit to liking (a cultivated attraction,
> I might add) chocolate, but not "needing" it...
>
> So maybe the cat perspective is going to lead to thinking that
> "Bats have no bankers and they do not drink
> and cannot be arrested and pay no tax
> and, in general, bats have it made."
> John Berryman, "The Dream Songs" (1969).
>
> and what do rocks need ... might there then be a suggestion that they have
> it made best of all and yet somehow we are one with them
> in the alcohol and law debate?