Were i think Ron Paul's argument on this subject & many other stances that he supports all fall apart is on the premise that A) People always act in their best interest. B) If you have the right to kill yourself because 'Its your freedom to do so' due to opposing government or state protection, but should you require assistance for protection of your life should it be denied? & if so, would it be seen as the states emergency services inept ability to act to save you or a triumph of personal freedom?.

@truth-is-the-nemesis:



And what if people don't act in their own self interest? I don't see how that makes an argument at all. Are you saying that people are all going to smoke crack because we don't act in our self interest from time to time? I don't understand the jist of this objection, perhaps you could elaborate. Let me address what I think you mean. 2 possibilities; a person makes a bad/wrong/unwise/irrational choice, person doesn't choose/to lazy to choose/doesn't know to choose. In all of these cases, though, it is people being themselves for themselves, or not.

And that, my friend, is always the thing I care about most. It is one thing to force someone not to eat a cheese burger, it is another thing to have him choose not to. One is the real road to paradise, the other is brutality creating a hell to create a paradise. It isn't enough to live in paradise, we have to earn it. My point is slightly elusive, so I will use Minority Report as an example. Is stopping murder worth anything at all if you haven't stopped the drive to murder? It is worth some, sure. But you will always have a need for the most strict of police to stop all murders, and to the loss of any privacy and personal liberty from the government.

I am not trying to force a false dichotomy because of a movie, but just illustrating that you have to choose a foundation from which to build your government on. One pure concept for which all others support. I think most liberals favor equality as this primary tenate, and most classical liberals favor freedom, and modern conservatives safety/"morality". Which on is right, imposable to know. However, from a mathematical outlook, the one that gives you the highest degree of all 3 would be optimal to satisfy the most people. I, for one, think freedom gives you the most ability of those things above.

You also create a moral hazard by restricting freedoms. More people might die of drug abuse if it is legal, but those are people who chose to do drugs. What about the entire countries who's populations are in fear of gun touting drug lords? What about the thousands that have died in drug related crimes, I mean innocent people here dying in drive bys and the like (which is over 10k per year in just drive bys). I am not ok with that. But since it is law, I have to be. It is me locking people up and throwing away the key.

And what if people don't act in their own self interest? I don't see how that makes an argument at all. Are you saying that people are all going to smoke crack because we don't act in our self interest from time to time? (No, but how is legalization the answer when it's already a problem being banned?)

I don't understand the jist of this objection, perhaps you could elaborate. (glad to, personal responsibility only goes so far- do the poor have a RIGHT to starve to death because its their personal responsibility to find work or should society help the less fortunate?. the RIGHT to destroy your body with elicit drug use as a tenant of freedom of expression means that ALL drugs would have to be on the table & the crucial element that keeps these items blacklisted is 'Control' - people can smoke a cigarette and work, drive etc. Drinking alcohol is ceased when a person is reaching an intoxicated level by a duty of care, pot the way that is done now is OK with me regulated by those who need it, but to equate its accessibility along the same lines as cigarettes would be dangerous (yes cigarettes cause more deaths), but 'long-term to the INDIVIDUAL', not short-term to society as you cannot use it and be as fluid a cigarette usage (remember these are social conventions).


You also create a moral hazard by restricting freedoms. More people might die of drug abuse if it is legal, but those are people who chose to do drugs (are they choosers or addicts?, also do you want your government producing heroin like a pusher?. What about the entire countries who's populations are in fear of gun touting drug lords? (the only way to stop the cartel's is by legalizing all class A drugs, and why subject the majority of society to dangerous substances which you admit would find no use in having such things only to stop the criminal element which will always evolve to newer things?).

I'm not voting for Ron Paul because of his stance on one issue, that is not how Democracy should work. Sadly our democracy is broken.

@GeeSussFreeK @truth-is-the-nemesis

The Libertarian point is that we can't assume we know what's best for other people. Yes, there are extremes to every line of reasoning and every principle, and that's where they usually start to break down. For many people, the principle of freedom starts to break down when your choices are causing harm to someone else.

It's the classic Libertarian vs. Utilitarian argument. If you're interested in hearing a lot more about this philosophical subject, watch this series:
http://www.justiceharvard.org/

The idea that's missing from most Libertarian arguments is community. As the world becomes more interconnected, our choices increasingly affect those around us. The idea of personal liberty in the philosophical sense has been around since the Enlightenment. Libertarianism, as a philosophy, is a little dated because the roots of its arguments come from a time when people were nowhere near as socially and economically connected as the world is today.

I like that Ron Paul is putting these arguments forth. I think it's a valuable discussion to have in America right now. Our government tries to do way too many things out of this sense of "must do what's best for the greater good". Chief among these are monetary policy and the drug war. The fact that anyone thinks it's a good idea to control the economy with Keynesian models is ridiculous to me, and the idea that anyone should be put in jail for possession or sale of marijuana is equally as ridiculous.

However, extending the principles of personal freedom all the way to legalizing all substances is a little sketchy. The problem is, Paul putting the "Libertarian" stamp on what he's saying and then taking things to crazy extremes often invalidates the entire principle of Libertarianism to people who don't like those extremes.

Guess we need a new word for it...pragmatic libertarianism or something much more catchy.

What supporters of Ron Paul should do is when another more "Electable" GOP candidate comes forward is tell him to pursue these policies that Paul advocated and if they don't to simply kill him.

I was divided on this issue until they threw the Tupac quote in.

1) Does limiting or increasing supply/availability affect demand?

2) Which is more expensive:
- Legal: Tax revenue - (Cost of Antisocial behaviour (due to lowered inhibitions) + health system costs)
- Illegal: No Reveune - (Enforcement cost + Increased crime from criminal group revenue)


As with Alcohol and Tobacco... The best strategy to stop people doing it is to allow it, tax it, and use the revenue to persuade / convince people to do it less.

Otherwise your literally converting the social and medical cost to law enforcement and corrections and probably magnifying the cost along the way.

Not taxing drugs is like leaving 1000 dollar bills on the table. It's so generous of us to give away that money to violent international gangs.

Four reasons I want pot legalized:
1) Don't want a beer gut or a charred liver
2) No hangovers
3) Cheaper than booze
4) Nobody has ever died from cannabis overdose

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

If there was a Paul/Rock ticket - I'd vote for it.

It's so sane that it's insane that so few people agree. Absurd to the max.

I've never been to the States, but a friend of mine who went to Hawaii was stunned at the amount of drug ads on the telly. It's hard for me to imagine TV where every 2nd ad is someone trying to push some BS drug at you. We get none of that crap here in Australia. Sure we get ads for things like pain relievers, hay fever, etc but none of these "Here's a list of symptoms. If you have one, you need this drug". That's just fucked.

*promote the obvious

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Saturday, May 14th, 2011 5:23pm PDT - promote requested by deathcow.