🚀 go-pugleaf

Rob Rodgers wrote:

> >It *is* one group forcing a law upon another without making it
> >apply to itself,
>
> This isn't a valid line of reasoning.   For an extreme case of "one
> group vs. another) onsider, say, property rights framed in that
> context. Or national sovereignty.
>

Democracy is 2 wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner.  Fuck
democracy.

> Or are you thinking more along the lines of crime?  How about jailing
> felons (one group -- that being non-criminally-engaged society --
> forcing a law upon another -- like outlawing mail fraud)?  Or
> something more traditional ( telling good ol' boys they can't have a
> few six packs on their long drive back from fishin' )?
>

Actions that violate the rights of others, the government may prohibit; underage
drinking does not violate the rights of others.

> Did you miss the last few weeks of news reports on those idiot
> embarassments who populate some campuses?

> The evidence is on the side of those who believe that 18-20 year olds
> apparently *can't* make responsible decisions about alcohol.  They not
> only can't handle the responsibility, but they're damn close to
> throwing riots and running out of control because of an addiction.
>

First of all, if 99 percent of people 18 to 20 are irresponsible with alcohol,
that is no excuse for imposing a drinking age on one innocent person who does not
consent to it.  Secondly, armed resistance against the government is justified
when the government violates the rights of the people.

The rioters should focus on who is the enemy, the perfidious, obnoxious,
lying-in-court egomaniacs (P.O.L.I.C.E.) that have CHOSEN to sign up and enforce
the unjust laws of unjust governments.  Innocent people should not be harmed
either in their persons or property.  Basically, don't kill anything that isn't a
cop.  Cops chose to sign up; discrimination victims didn't choose to be under 21.

> >And, just to point out something, the law doesn't apply to you, so your
> >input has a certain bias. :)
>
> The law doesn't apply to me now, but it applied to me at a time not so
> far back.  No matter how the under-21 crowd wants to try and frame it,
> it's not a rights issue any more than being allowed to posess firearms
> or marry under age-10 are rights issues for children.
>
> Is 21 arbitrary?  Absolutely.  Any age would be arbitrary.
>
> But: 21 works.
>

Zero drinking age would also work, if the government would let it.  (A) restore
the alienated rights of innocent victims of unconstitutional discrimination; (B)
if you get drunk and huirt somebody, YOU pay the price, not some innocent people
who share your year of birth.

> >But really, other countries have lower drinking ages and it does NOT increase
> >drunk driving(/rape/murder/other-crimes-here).  I agree that perhaps no
> >drinking age might be irresponsible, but at least it should be lowered to the
> >age of majority, 18.
>

There is no drinking age in the Dominican Republic.  Why vacation in Puerto Rico
(21) when you can vacation in Puerto Plata?

> The United States isn't other countries. In particular, to be 18 in
> many countries is to be an adult, with adult responsibilites (working
> full time or fully supporting oneself, etc.).  Far cry from here.
>

The U.S. Government penalises people for not driving, more so than other countries
where public transit is better.  In the USA, strict zoning regulations put
distance between "residential" areas and "commercial" or "industrial" areas,
forcing people to drive instead of walking next door to work; more so than in many
other countries.

In the USA, 17-year-olds aren't ALLOWED to work full time and support themselves,
State laws require employers to send them home at a certain hour, such as 22:00
local time.  Always remember that the government is the enemy.

> The real problem is that the people who are most insistent that they
> can "handle" their drinks are those who are the least responsible.
>
> Really, who are we kidding?  College kids want to be able to drink
> because they like getting a buzz or going all the way to plastered.
> It's not for their health, it's not for the "calm, relaxing
> atmosphere" or to relieve stress (not in any healthy way, that is) or
> because they enjoy a glass of vino with their meal (thought I'd head
> that one off).  It's because boozing is fun _specifically_ because of
> the lack of self-control that it involves.
>
> At that point, the whole rights/oppression issue is right out the
> window.


The issue of rights/oppression does not hinge on the discrimination victim's
motive for his or her actions.