Pot Use Disqualifies You as a Gun owner/Purchaser!

[breakingcontact]

It should only be illegal to violate another persons rights.

If someone smokes their crack without violating anyone else's rights then let'em go.

Also, remove the safety net. When they trash their life and have nothing they can make the choice to stop smoking crack or die in the gutter.

A lot of money to make off that safety net in both private and public sector. However im not proposing that because it exists it must always exist.

You are illustrating my point though. Our gov is currently encouraging all sorts of bad behavior.

 

[Younggun]

Well I talked about encouraging and discouraging. Right now we have a government hostile to good things (like life, marriage, family, work, economic activity and on and on) and promoting bad things (drugs, ethanol, interventionist wars, deficit spending, dead beat dads, people who choose not to work).

The government should do neither. That's not the governments job.

 

[Younggun]

A lot of money to make off that safety net in both private and public sector. However im not proposing that because it exists it must always exist.

You are illustrating my point though. Our gov is currently encouraging all sorts of bad behavior.

I agree. I don't believe I accused the gov of doing otherwise. Maybe the lines got crossed somewhere, posts were coming in kinda fast and some I just skimmed.

There is a difference between allowing people to do stupid things, and supporting/encouraging it.

I feel if the safety nets were removed we would see people become much more responsible. More real families because families being stability. Instability would be much more dangerous without the safety net.

Drug use would decline because when you trashed your life it that would be it.

I believe it would achieve many of the goals you speak of. Not all, and there would be some stuff that you wouldn't like also. But that's the deal when you allow people to be free.

 

[breakingcontact]

The government should do neither. That's not the governments job.

Interesting question. I think when we talk generically of government we (or at least I) mean the federal government.

You think that all layers or levels of government have no role in encouraging good behavior and discouraging bad?

 

[breakingcontact]

I'll post later. Good stuff. OP if we are hijacking tell us to shaddup. I think of it more as the conversation evolving.

 

[Saltyag2010]

Please start a thread so I can end your argument.

I'm done. All that matters-
BOOBIES. big boobs-( . Y . )
small boobs- (.Y.)
perky boobs- (*Y*)
etc. etc.

big thanks to urban dictionary.

 

[IXLR8]

I would have to see what the definitions for the terms used on the 4473 are. Addicted means what precisely? There does not appear to be any verbage describing, if you currently use illegal drugs, does that mean today, yesterday, a decade ago? It also does not mention if you plan to use them in the future. Maybe the Minority Report type of pre-cogs will determine that you will use a drug in the future and deny your application based on that.

I have had to participate in four seperate drug testing programs for different companies at the same time, including the DOT. I would comment that if you can pass a DOT 6 panel drug test, you are not addicted to anything.

At least you are not denied for being addicted to the smell of Hoppes #9.....

 

[Younggun]

Interesting question. I think when we talk generically of government we (or at least I) mean the federal government.

You think that all layers or levels of government have no role in encouraging good behavior and discouraging bad?

You would have to be more specific about how they would encourage/discourage behaviors and how behaviors get a good/bad classification.

 

[breakingcontact]

You would have to be more specific about how they would encourage/discourage behaviors and how behaviors get a good/bad classification.

I will

 

[robertc1024]

I feel if the safety nets were removed we would see people become much more responsible. More real families because families being stability. Instability would be much more dangerous without the safety net.

Drug use would decline because when you trashed your life it that would be it.

I understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure I agree, having a drug addict brother in law. His safety net is not the government, but his parents. Over the 30+ years I've known him, all he has done is make his family unstable. Admittedly, they should have cut him off a long time ago and let him rot, but a person on drugs doesn't just affect himself. He has trashed his life lots of times and the drama continues.

 

[breakingcontact]

You would have to be more specific about how they would encourage/discourage behaviors and how behaviors get a good/bad classification.

So, I suppose the question has to be first asked. Do libertarians believe in a restoration of what once was or are they advocating something new entirely?

Secondly we have to recognize that all actions are not equal and some affect society in a positive way (someone organizing a baseball game has a positive influence whilst a drunk sitting at the bar has a negative influence.).

To answer your question. Historically state and more local governments did indeed regulate or encourage/discourage much of peoples personal behavior.

 

[Vaquero]

Once, men left the eastern cities and went west. No law. No Cavalry, No guarantees.
Some of that spirit lives on. Some of us just need our space and less of the "progress" others are so fond of.

I just really want to be left alone to revel in my victories and suffer in my defeats.
I know the transportation systems and this internet make that impossible these days.

But really, if the gov and the followers would just try to give a few folks some space to be themselves, id be ok with most of my life.

 

[Younggun]

So, I suppose the question has to be first asked. Do libertarians believe in a restoration of what once was or are they advocating something new entirely?

I can't speak for every libertarian, only myself.

I would advocate something much more reminiscent of the original Federal government, which had a very limited role.

I don't know that I would advocate for what once was necessarily, because we have also learned a lot and made some good changes since this country was founded (ending slavery, allowing women to vote, etc) I do not advocate changing our system of government. For the most part, I'm advocating letting society take the role of influence instead of government entities.

Secondly we have to recognize that all actions are not equal and some affect society in a positive way (someone organizing a baseball game has a positive influence whilst a drunk sitting at the bar has a negative influence.).

We can not control every influence on society without controlling people. However, by allowing people to see what happens to those who make bad choices (and not placing a government safety net beneath them) that persons negative choice can have a positive influence on others by allowing then to see that there are consequences, thereby positively influencing society. Even those situations such as Roberts would be an example. There will always be those who are determined to destroy themselves, those who prop that person up time and time again are allowing that person to be a negative influence. That is their choice and their right. But the BiL is not forcing them to support him.

To answer your question. Historically state and more local governments did indeed regulate or encourage/discourage much of peoples personal behavior.

This doesn't really answer my question of just what a gov would consider good/bad or how the gov would go about rewarding or discouraging those behaviors.

Would the gov take steps to discourage homosexuality, alcohol use, riding motorcycles, bungee jumping, and smoking? Some are morally wrong, which is my opinion and that of many others, but not a belief everyone shares. Others are obviously unhealthy or proven to carry more risk to life or serious injury.

Which should the gov discourage and who would draw that line? How would the gov go about discouraging said activities?

What activities are good and how should they be encouraged?

Heterosexual family, volunteer little league coach, steady job, small debt, going to church, adopt a highway?

Which activities should the gov (state, local, fed) endorse and how should it go about encouraging them?

IMO, I believe the encouragement/discouragement should be left up to society.

I realize that it wouldn't work under the current circumstances. The gov is creating to much success from what should be failure.



Look forward to your reply and thoroughly enjoying this thought exercise.

 

[TXARGUY]

Once, men left the eastern cities and went west. No law. No Cavalry, No guarantees.
Some of that spirit lives on. Some of us just need our space and less of the "progress" others are so fond of.

I just really want to be left alone to revel in my victories and suffer in my defeats.
I know the transportation systems and this internet make that impossible these days.

But really, if the gov and the followers would just try to give a few folks some space to be themselves, id be ok with most of my life.

That spirit is alive and well in me and my family.

Very well put sir.

 

[Younggun]

Once, men left the eastern cities and went west. No law. No Cavalry, No guarantees.
Some of that spirit lives on. Some of us just need our space and less of the "progress" others are so fond of.

I just really want to be left alone to revel in my victories and suffer in my defeats.
I know the transportation systems and this internet make that impossible these days.

But really, if the gov and the followers would just try to give a few folks some space to be themselves, id be ok with most of my life.

I agree with this.

 

[breakingcontact]

I agree with this.

I agree with that "idea" or "ideal".

 

[robertc1024]

Even those situations such as Roberts would be an example. There will always be those who are determined to destroy themselves, those who prop that person up time and time again are allowing that person to be a negative influence. That is their choice and their right. But the BiL is not forcing them to support him.

Which should the gov discourage and who would draw that line? How would the gov go about discouraging said activities?

What activities are good and how should they be encouraged?

IMO, I believe the encouragement/discouragement should be left up to society.

I realize that it wouldn't work under the current circumstances. The gov is creating to much success from what should be failure.

Look forward to your reply and thoroughly enjoying this thought exercise.

*Robert's* grammar po-po. I thoroughly agree with you though. In my situation, you have to draw a line in the sand. To me, it's all about personal responsibility ultimately. You can f'k up yourself and everybody around you. I've got more stories about this with my wife god bless her.

 

[breakingcontact]

I can't speak for every libertarian, only myself.

I would advocate something much more reminiscent of the original Federal government, which had a very limited role.

OK, but in those times, the states and even more so, the local communities had more control. There wasn't just an absence of control.

We can not control every influence on society without controlling people. However, by allowing people to see what happens to those who make bad choices (and not placing a government safety net beneath them) that persons negative choice can have a positive influence on others by allowing then to see that there are consequences, thereby positively influencing society. Even those situations such as Roberts would be an example. There will always be those who are determined to destroy themselves, those who prop that person up time and time again are allowing that person to be a negative influence. That is their choice and their right. But the BiL is not forcing them to support him.

This is true. Just like mass murder will never be "stopped". However we can do things to reduce it, but I believe those actions would best originate locally, not from the federal government.

This doesn't really answer my question of just what a gov would consider good/bad or how the gov would go about rewarding or discouraging those behaviors.


Would the gov take steps to discourage homosexuality, alcohol use, riding motorcycles, bungee jumping, and smoking? Some are morally wrong, which is my opinion and that of many others, but not a belief everyone shares. Others are obviously unhealthy or proven to carry more risk to life or serious injury.

Understood, I was answering previously what levels the power should reside in. As far as good/bad, I suppose that relates to your "safety net". Want to be gay? Don't expect the gov to come up with miracle life saving drugs. Wreck your motorcycle, don't expect to be able to walk again due to some radical spinal surgery at a university hospital. Bungee jumping, smoking, same same.

Which should the gov discourage and who would draw that line? How would the gov go about discouraging said activities?

What activities are good and how should they be encouraged?

Heterosexual family, volunteer little league coach, steady job, small debt, going to church, adopt a highway?

Which activities should the gov (state, local, fed) endorse and how should it go about encouraging them?

I think the federal gov should have very little role. Much more power needs to be at state and local levels. As far as which activities should be encouraged vs discouraged, you'll have to give me a list and a green and red marker.

IMO, I believe the encouragement/discouragement should be left up to society.

I understand what you mean. If government were minimized, society could do more to improve and govern itself.

I realize that it wouldn't work under the current circumstances. The gov is creating to much success from what should be failure.

This reminds me of a discussion that TheDan and I had. Basically on a spectrum from where we are to where you libertarians would like to be, I'd say "OK, let's stop here", but I'd be with y'all for most of that journey.

Look forward to your reply and thoroughly enjoying this thought exercise.

^

 

[JohnnyLoco]

So, I suppose the question has to be first asked. Do libertarians believe in a restoration of what once was or are they advocating something new entirely?

Secondly we have to recognize that all actions are not equal and some affect society in a positive way (someone organizing a baseball game has a positive influence whilst a drunk sitting at the bar has a negative influence.).

To answer your question. Historically state and more local governments did indeed regulate or encourage/discourage much of peoples personal behavior.

Libertarians advocate for something new, or ideal. There have been problems with the Federal government and states violating, or being perceived to violate, libertarian principles since the founding of the Republic. So I cannot see how anyone would say we should go back to the days when things were perfect, because they really weren't. We would be happy, though, with significant reform and ending all the gov regulation and intrusions into our private lives, ending the Federal Reserve, abolishing the IRS, setting term limits on Congress, ending foreign entanglements, de-militarizing our police, and ending welfare.

Nations are not conceived in a vacuum, though. There are so many social norms and traditions, not to mention the prevailing morality of the majority, Christianity, that it is practically impossible to separate influence of the former on government.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

A good read is The Gangs of New York and The Gangs of Chicago by Herbert Asbury.

Like Vaquero said, many of the people left the big cities to face Indians, weather, and pestilence out in the frontier because things had gotten so rotten in the big cities and because they wanted to be left alone.

Things were pretty wild in the west too, but not to the extent depicted in some of the major cities. If you look at the history, most of the morality laws did not exist in the mid-late 1800s in the U.S.

It was in fact private citizens that led efforts to clean up the wretched areas of New York and Chicago. The conditions of the cities led to some of the first police forces. Private groups, unfortunately, were able to persuade lawmakers to make laws against the vices that were hallmarks of the cesspools in the big cities. People in the late 1800s to early 1900s did not fear the government like they did in the 1700s and the early-mid 1800s. They began to cry for government regulation, the FDA, labor laws, and so on.

So, we are where we are because our do-gooder ancestors did not listen to the Founders and could not see the big picture of government tyranny.