Political Crossfire Forums

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: That was my point. The government doesn't have the right to dictate what you eat any more than it has the right to dictate what you drink or smoke.

Catch my drift all those who think otherwise?


Atlas Bergeron wrote: Obviously. Its a satire against banning alchohol for people under 21, since that most affects me. But it also deals with all drug bans.

And no, I wasn't stoned, am not stoned, and have never been stoned


basically you're just complaining about how you can't drink legally yet and you want to. and that you can't do drugs legally, but you want to.

What better reason to complain…
Then when you want to do something but cannot?

[Kt]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: 1. People who eat too many fatty foods get heart attacks and cost alot in medical bills.
2. The government's job is to protect people by whatever means necessary
therefore, 3. the government should ban all fatty foods.

We could call it "The Fatty War"

Is this an anti-drug war thread in disguise? Or are you just a fascist?

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote: The Comrade wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: That was my point. The government doesn't have the right to dictate what you eat any more than it has the right to dictate what you drink or smoke.

Catch my drift all those who think otherwise?


Atlas Bergeron wrote: Obviously. Its a satire against banning alchohol for people under 21, since that most affects me. But it also deals with all drug bans.

And no, I wasn't stoned, am not stoned, and have never been stoned


basically you're just complaining about how you can't drink legally yet and you want to. and that you can't do drugs legally, but you want to.

What better reason to complain…
Then when you want to do something but cannot?

why should state or federal laws change because he wants to do something he can't?

that was my overall point(although i didn't make it clear).

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: The Comrade wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: That was my point. The government doesn't have the right to dictate what you eat any more than it has the right to dictate what you drink or smoke.

Catch my drift all those who think otherwise?


Atlas Bergeron wrote: Obviously. Its a satire against banning alchohol for people under 21, since that most affects me. But it also deals with all drug bans.

And no, I wasn't stoned, am not stoned, and have never been stoned


basically you're just complaining about how you can't drink legally yet and you want to. and that you can't do drugs legally, but you want to.

What better reason to complain…
Then when you want to do something but cannot?

why should state or federal laws change because he wants to do something he can't?

To make him happier of course. To make us all happier.

The Comrade wrote: that was my overall point(although i didn't make it clear).

If a law is making people miserable, it needs to be changed. When I say "him" I mean it as a metaphor for a populus. But you seemed suprised that he would complain about something because he was too young to do drink, and unable to do drugs, but he wanted to. I can think of no better reason to complain than for not being able to do what you wanted to do.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Kumar wrote: The fact that we as a society have to pay for obesity indirectly (through lost productivity) and directly (healthcare costs) negates the argument that it does not affect others. It clearly does.

However, the answer is not banning fatty foods. The answer is education and the promotion of a healthy diet from early childhood.
:rofl: You have to be kidding me. Obviously the healthcare argument is correct, but that could be corrected with no government. However, through lost productivity? You have lived in a mixed ecconomy far too long my freind (as have we all). If the market were open, the only one they would be harming would be themselves, there would be plenty of other people to take up the job they 'lost' becuase they were 'fat'.

[Atlas Bergeron]

The Grandmaster wrote: The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: The Comrade wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: That was my point. The government doesn't have the right to dictate what you eat any more than it has the right to dictate what you drink or smoke.

Catch my drift all those who think otherwise?


Atlas Bergeron wrote: Obviously. Its a satire against banning alchohol for people under 21, since that most affects me. But it also deals with all drug bans.

And no, I wasn't stoned, am not stoned, and have never been stoned


basically you're just complaining about how you can't drink legally yet and you want to. and that you can't do drugs legally, but you want to.

What better reason to complain…
Then when you want to do something but cannot?

why should state or federal laws change because he wants to do something he can't?

To make him happier of course. To make us all happier.

The Comrade wrote: that was my overall point(although i didn't make it clear).

If a law is making people miserable, it needs to be changed. When I say "him" I mean it as a metaphor for a populus. But you seemed suprised that he would complain about something because he was too young to do drink, and unable to do drugs, but he wanted to. I can think of no better reason to complain than for not being able to do what you wanted to do.

Actually... I don't want to do drugs. But since you mean it for everyone, its all good.

But now, the reason why I the ban to be lifted is becuase I want to be able to drink without risk--and the reason why it should be lifted is not to 'make me happy' but becuase the government has no right in that aspect of our lives.

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote: To make him happier of course. To make us all happier.

by all if you mean drug users then i guess you're right.


The Grandmaster wrote: If a law is making people miserable, it needs to be changed.

the law doesn't make people miserable. people who break the law make themselves miserable. it's not like drug laws come into peoples houses at night and throw them into jail.


The Grandmaster wrote: When I say "him" I mean it as a metaphor for a populus. But you seemed suprised that he would complain about something because he was too young to do drink, and unable to do drugs, but he wanted to. I can think of no better reason to complain than for not being able to do what you wanted to do.


what good does complaining do? sack it up and wait till you're 21 and don't do drugs. problem solved.

[Kumar]

Atlas Bergeron wrote:
You have to be kidding me. Obviously the healthcare argument is correct, but that could be corrected with no government.
Yes, we could indeed do away with government to "fix" this problem. That does not mean it is a desirable or reasonable solution.

Private healthcare is quite frankly a lunatic idea and those who are familiar with the health system understand why healthcare is one of those things that can only be effectively administered by the government, assuming the idea of letting individuals die due to a lack of funds is unappealing to you.

Quote: However, through lost productivity? You have lived in a mixed ecconomy far too long my freind (as have we all). If the market were open, the only one they would be harming would be themselves, there would be plenty of other people to take up the job they 'lost' becuase they were 'fat'.
I don't think you quite understand. Look at the situation from a perspective extending beyond the labour market.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Kumar wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote:
You have to be kidding me. Obviously the healthcare argument is correct, but that could be corrected with no government.
Yes, we could indeed do away with government to "fix" this problem. That does not mean it is a desirable or reasonable solution.

Private healthcare is quite frankly a lunatic idea and those who are familiar with the health system understand why healthcare is one of those things that can only be effectively administered by the government, assuming the idea of letting individuals die due to a lack of funds is unappealing to you.
:lol:
Lets see the senators try and do the doctor work, maybe it is laws which heal people? Like some magical incantation over a boiling pot of stew?

Private healthcare has exsited for a long time and is working just fine. Only when politicians try to bribe the american populous with it will it be truely corrupt.
Quote:
Quote: However, through lost productivity? You have lived in a mixed ecconomy far too long my freind (as have we all). If the market were open, the only one they would be harming would be themselves, there would be plenty of other people to take up the job they 'lost' becuase they were 'fat'.
I don't think you quite understand. Look at the situation from a perspective extending beyond the labour market.
Like from the perspective of a caveman? How is a fat caveman harming any other cavemen?

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: To make him happier of course. To make us all happier.

by all if you mean drug users then i guess you're right.

Of course. If someone wants to do drugs, but can’t by law, then of course, they will be less happy. A solution is removing this law.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: If a law is making people miserable, it needs to be changed.

the law doesn't make people miserable. people who break the law make themselves miserable. it's not like drug laws come into peoples houses at night and throw them into jail.

Indeed Comrade. Laws can never be wrong? All we have to do is obey, and we’ll be fine, right? There was a time when blacks and women could not vote. It was illegal to teach a black person to read or to aid them in escaping slavery. It was illegal for certain people to sit in certain parts of the bus, or drink from certain fountains. But then Comrade…it wasn’t the law was it? Those that would dare to educate a black person, or help them escape made themselves miserable. Why, all they would have had to have done was obey the law, not aided in the escape or helped to educate a black person, right Comrade? That would have been the right thing to do you think?

So we should never challenge laws Comrade? Because they can never be wrong? A society that will never be skeptical of the actions of it’s government is the best society? And were people to be lawfully murdered because they were a certain color, or religion, or belief, that would be okay wouldn’t it? After all…it isn’t the law oppressing them…

All they have to do is not be that color or religion or belief, right?

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: When I say "him" I mean it as a metaphor for a populus. But you seemed suprised that he would complain about something because he was too young to do drink, and unable to do drugs, but he wanted to. I can think of no better reason to complain than for not being able to do what you wanted to do.


what good does complaining do? sack it up and wait till you're 21 and don't do drugs. problem solved.

Complaining helps a person feel better.

But other than that, where would we be, if we had never challenged law? Defend your position, that every law is inherently good.

[ubikk]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: 1. People who eat too many fatty foods get heart attacks and cost alot in medical bills.
2. The government's job is to protect people by whatever means necessary
therefore, 3. the government should ban all fatty foods.

We could call it "The Fatty War"

Replace "Fat" and "Fatty" with "Drugs" and their associated medical consequences and what does your post say? :wink:

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote: Of course. If someone wants to do drugs, but can’t by law, then of course, they will be less happy. A solution is removing this law.

or a solution is AA


The Grandmaster wrote: Indeed Comrade. Laws can never be wrong? All we have to do is obey, and we’ll be fine, right? There was a time when blacks and women could not vote. It was illegal to teach a black person to read or to aid them in escaping slavery. It was illegal for certain people to sit in certain parts of the bus, or drink from certain fountains. But then Comrade…it wasn’t the law was it? Those that would dare to educate a black person, or help them escape made themselves miserable. Why, all they would have had to have done was obey the law, not aided in the escape or helped to educate a black person, right Comrade? That would have been the right thing to do you think?

never said they can never be wrong. never said be a mindless slave.

infact, my entire statement never mentioned the right and wrong of laws. it merely stated that obeying them keeps you from getting in trouble. if you want to risk getting in trouble with the law, then accept your punishment, it was of your own doing.

The Grandmaster wrote: So we should never challenge laws Comrade? Because they can never be wrong? A society that will never be skeptical of the actions of it’s government is the best society? And were people to be lawfully murdered because they were a certain color, or religion, or belief, that would be okay wouldn’t it? After all…it isn’t the law oppressing them…

grandmaster, for someone who claims to love arguing, you have virtually made this entire argument up yourself. i have never said any of this.


The Grandmaster wrote: All they have to do is not be that color or religion or belief, right?

never said that.




The Grandmaster wrote: Complaining helps a person feel better.

But other than that, where would we be, if we had never challenged law? Defend your position, that every law is inherently good.

where grandmaster? where did i say this?

where did i make this my claim?

where didi m ake this the keystone of my argument?

where, pleae, tell me where i said this.

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Indeed Comrade. Laws can never be wrong? All we have to do is obey, and we’ll be fine, right? There was a time when blacks and women could not vote. It was illegal to teach a black person to read or to aid them in escaping slavery. It was illegal for certain people to sit in certain parts of the bus, or drink from certain fountains. But then Comrade…it wasn’t the law was it? Those that would dare to educate a black person, or help them escape made themselves miserable. Why, all they would have had to have done was obey the law, not aided in the escape or helped to educate a black person, right Comrade? That would have been the right thing to do you think?

never said they can never be wrong. never said be a mindless slave.

infact, my entire statement never mentioned the right and wrong of laws. it merely stated that obeying them keeps you from getting in trouble. if you want to risk getting in trouble with the law, then accept your punishment, it was of your own doing.

The Grandmaster wrote: So we should never challenge laws Comrade? Because they can never be wrong? A society that will never be skeptical of the actions of it’s government is the best society? And were people to be lawfully murdered because they were a certain color, or religion, or belief, that would be okay wouldn’t it? After all…it isn’t the law oppressing them…

grandmaster, for someone who claims to love arguing, you have virtually made this entire argument up yourself. i have never said any of this.

The Grandmaster wrote: All they have to do is not be that color or religion or belief, right?

never said that.

The Grandmaster wrote: Complaining helps a person feel better.

But other than that, where would we be, if we had never challenged law? Defend your position, that every law is inherently good.

where grandmaster? where did i say this?

where did i make this my claim?

where didi m ake this the keystone of my argument?

where, pleae, tell me where i said this.

The posit was asserted when you said this, previously.

The Comrade wrote:
the law doesn't make people miserable. people who break the law make themselves miserable.

"The Law doesn’t make people miserable." Well Comrade, I say that many many times, the law does make people miserable, and to be punished for such a law is not the fault of the person; it is the fault of an unjust law. The point that I was making was that it isn’t the people we should blame for getting into trouble…a “Well it’s your own damn fault” attitude, but it is in fact, the law, if that law is unjust. I was showing you examples of when it was not the “fault” of the people that they were punished for breaking the law…but rather it was the Virtue of the people for challenging a law that was not just.

Now our specific topic here is another matter. I have not claimed that any particular law is just or unjust, that is to be worked on seperately. But we know now, and you seem to agree, that some laws can be in fact, not just.

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Of course. If someone wants to do drugs, but can’t by law, then of course, they will be less happy. A solution is removing this law.

or a solution is AA

Indeed, that is another solution. I like mine better. It’s more fun.

[The Comrade]

The Grandmaster wrote: "The Law doesn’t make people miserable." Well Comrade, I say that many many times, the law does make people miserable, and to be punished for such a law is not the fault of the person; it is the fault of an unjust law. The point that I was making was that it isn’t the people we should blame for getting into trouble…a “Well it’s your own damn fault” attitude, but it is in fact, the law, if that law is unjust. I was showing you examples of when it was not the “fault” of the people that they were punished for breaking the law…but rather it was the Virtue of the people for challenging a law that was not just.


laws and their punishments are reactionary. they require an action to work.

that action being the person who broke the law. they brought their punishment down on themselves.


and please don't try and use jim crow laws as an example. anyone with half a brain knows those were stupid. it's like comparing apples and oranges.

The Grandmaster wrote: Now our specific topic here is another matter. I have not claimed that any particular law is just or unjust, that is to be worked on seperately. But we know now, and you seem to agree, that some laws can be in fact, not just.

laws can indeed be unjust when they take away the basic liberties every person deserves. drug use is not one of those basic liberties.

[The Grandmaster]

The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: "The Law doesn’t make people miserable." Well Comrade, I say that many many times, the law does make people miserable, and to be punished for such a law is not the fault of the person; it is the fault of an unjust law. The point that I was making was that it isn’t the people we should blame for getting into trouble…a “Well it’s your own damn fault” attitude, but it is in fact, the law, if that law is unjust. I was showing you examples of when it was not the “fault” of the people that they were punished for breaking the law…but rather it was the Virtue of the people for challenging a law that was not just.

laws and their punishments are reactionary. they require an action to work.

that action being the person who broke the law. they brought their punishment down on themselves.

and please don't try and use jim crow laws as an example. anyone with half a brain knows those were stupid. it's like comparing apples and oranges.

No one is contesting that a person would not get into trouble if they broke no law. However, to merely say that they brought the punishment down on themselves is making it sound like the person alone is to be blamed entirely for his plight, and the governing body is to be absolved of any wrongdoing or guilt in the manner. You see Comrade, I’m not going to let you get away with that. Yes, the Jim Crow laws were stupid. But remember, if I helped myself to the same logic you have used, we could say of a black man who was beaten or jailed for drinking from the wrong water fountain during that time, “Hey, it was his fault! He brought is down himself. He need only not have broken the law!” While he technically broke the law, we all understand that something seems inherently wrong with this, don’t we? Something just doesn’t seem to fit. It sounds like we are blaming this man, when in reality, it was the unjust laws that were to blame. Standing one the edge of a technicality does not portray what we really mean here. Saying “Well, he broke the law” suggest he is to blame, when we understand today this man should be absolved of guilt, by virtue of the fact the law he broke was ridiculous. This is not drugs, this is law in general, and those in trouble for breaking it are not always to blame.


The Comrade wrote: The Grandmaster wrote: Now our specific topic here is another matter. I have not claimed that any particular law is just or unjust, that is to be worked on seperately. But we know now, and you seem to agree, that some laws can be in fact, not just.

laws can indeed be unjust when they take away the basic liberties every person deserves. drug use is not one of those basic liberties.

Well, now that is your opinion isn't it? I would say a right to a person's body, and what they put into it, is a most basic liberty. If you do not have even your own person under your control, I can not see that you have anything.