Liberal view of Government.

[JoeOh]

I have no interest in looking up the state budgets and compiling them, but since about half of our prison populations exists because of drug convictions, that invalidates that half of their expenditures for law enforcement.

This argument is of doubtful validity. I know that a lot of people here are believing that legalizing drugs will make everything better. It wont.
Just look at what happened in China during the second half of the 19th century. The British opium brought China almost to its knees. It was completely broken, full of apathic people. It was enough for two wars and the boxer riot (when even the budhist monks could not tolerate it anymore).

I agree that we should not legalize drugs crack or meth, but lets at least legalize weed. I never smoked it and *I* think it should be legalized. Come on, weed is not like crack or heroine. It's just like tobacco, just not addictive.

[Skipjack]

I would say, lets have a "non prosecution" policy for marijuana.
That does not make it legal, but it wont criminalize users. One could even have some (government controled and taxed) providing of this. However these things need to be monitored closely. If things go out of control, it has to be possible to get back to previous conditions.
Yes marijuana, most likely, does not make people addicted, but it does affect your brain quite a bit. I am not a specialist, but I do see long time users that I personally know.
They become apathic and somewhat paranoid, all of them.
Interestingly it is our left wing that wants marijuana (some are for all drugs) to be legalized, you know the old 68 generation...
I personally dont think very highly of it, nor them...

[alexjrgreen]

I have no interest in looking up the state budgets and compiling them, but since about half of our prison populations exists because of drug convictions, that invalidates that half of their expenditures for law enforcement.

This argument is of doubtful validity. I know that a lot of people here are believing that legalizing drugs will make everything better. It wont.
Just look at what happened in China during the second half of the 19th century. The British opium brought China almost to its knees. It was completely broken, full of apathic people. It was enough for two wars and the boxer riot (when even the budhist monks could not tolerate it anymore).

The British Government was actively supporting opium smuggling to counter the Empire's enormous trade deficit with China, where opium was illegal.

Drawing any conclusions about drug legalization from that seems difficult at best.

[JohnSmith]

Except since only about 10% or less of the "small duty" goes to anything rationally or even traditionally government's job--let alone in the constitution RE the feds--and even the local cops do a great deal that isn't any of their business; why don't you STFU until you have something to say that's true or even relevant.

It was true, it was relevant. Government is too big, most of us agree on that.
Can we keep things civil, though?

I am a resident of a community by the name of Eastman, in New Hampshire, which covers parts of Grantham, Enfield, and Springfield. It is a private corporation owned by the residents. It owns the roads, water, fire, security. Our sewer needs are taken care of by a septic system, which works just fine. The water is higher quality than in town. So are the roads. We save so much on taxes, having an exemption from many local property taxes, that the excess we use to fund an 18 hole golf course, cross country ski trails, and multiple beaches on a large lake that the community surrounds.

Hey! I'm glad for you IntLibber, looks like you guys set up a good government. I don't doubt that it'll bloat over the next 50 years, like every government does, but I wish we had something similar.

For a second there you had it. Yes, I and many other people I've met (I did think I was the only one for a while) do in fact do everything on my own, as far as humanly possible. It's fun and it's rewarding.

I'm glad you enjoy it, but I have to point out that an uncontrolled fire is more than just a danger to you, it's a danger to your neighbors and your town (depending on the weather and location). I doubt you've ever seen it, but fire can spread fast. And are you going to put out your neighbors house too?

I'm not sure what fallacy to call this other than an idiot fallacy. Society doesnt provide you those conveniences, other men and women in PRIVATE industry do. The only things public are when some demagog like yourself gets a majority of fools to vote that they need to enslave a certain industry (and nationalizing or regulating the prices of any industry is enslaving it, no bones about it) to benefit a certain set of constituents.

I'm a demagogue now, am I? I didn't know I was so powerful! I said that you're not a slave, because you're free to leave. Slaves are not. Right or wrong, government is not slavery, and painting it with the same brush is just an appeal to emotion, not logical argument. And unless you like monopolies, sometimes price regulation is necessary. As for who provides the conveniences, you've got a good point. It's mostly private enterprise.

natural hand of natural selection

That's the Naturalistic Fallacy. (Who knew that I'd get so much use from that critical thinking course?)
Basically, natural is not the same as good. The whole of human society is a testament to that!

I doubt very much that you are paying the full cost. Sounds to me like your freeloading has caused you to be very risk taking and irresponsible and you are happy to have been able to fob off the costs of your irresponsibility on the rest of us. So you've rationalized it. Slaveowners rationalized their slave owning too, they even legally voted it in, it was all constitutional and everything for a good 80 years after the founding of this country. Just because your public slavery is legal and constitutional doesnt make it right.

Would you stop with the slave analogies? I've already told you, the comparison is crap. As for me being irresponsible, I guess enjoying a sport is irresponsible? Then I'm guilty as charged! That's where the broken bones came from. The knees and hernia 'just happened' and I wasn't even driving in the car accident (besides, it was a moose). It's just bad luck. Bad luck that I couldn't afford. And yeah, there's a chance that I haven't payed the full cost yet (small chance. I've been working for a long time). And I know I'll pay far more in the long term. I'm fine with that.

Back at ya. Where I live the fire department is VOLUNTEER, as were most of the fire companies in the US once, when they weren't for-profit departments of the insurance companies. Since then the unions have gotten into the mix and professionalized everything, while the departments were taken over by local governments because it was cheaper for the insurance companies to let government raise the capital via municipal bonds to pay for fire engines. (this is specifically an example of a private industry externalizing its costs onto government, which is deplorable and an example of the oligarchies you get from mercantilism when you let corporate lobbyists legislate an end to the free market.)

Oh, this one is a great laugh! Ok, once again, I'm canadian. Maybe fire departments work different around where you are? But I've been a volunteer, and part of a pure volunteer force, and guess what? There's just no comparison to a full time force. Yup, the unions are a pain in the ass. But I'd rather be covered by a professional station than the volunteers. It's the difference between "we rescued your family" and "we rescued your foundations."
Again, more personal experience. 4/5 of my family is active in fire protection service.



As for drugs, I agree on the non-prosecution of users. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

[TDPerk]

It was true, it was relevant. Government is too big, most of us agree on that.
Can we keep things civil, though?

No, JoeOh did not say anything which was true or relevant in the post I was replying to, and if he doesn't want poeple telling him to STFU, then he shouldn't say it himself. Additionally, there is no inherent reason to keep things civil, the destruction the left causes is too great to be handled with delicacy.

It has it's place, this wasn't it.

[JohnSmith]

TD, I wasn't aiming the 'Be Civil' just at you. Not being civil is pointless, since it means that everyone is just shouting and never listening. Eventually the fights start, and that never leads anywhere good.

But JoeOh did say something true and relevant. Do you have a tanker truck, pumper, and 2000 gallon water supply in your garage? Because that's the minimum you want to put out a house fire. If you don't, then you're going to have to pay. Or let your house burn down.
After that, it's how you want to pay and have the fire department arranged.
Since my house could burn down because of my neigbour's fire, I'd rather a public fire service.

[Skipjack]

You will also want your military and your police not to be in the hands of a private entity.
Private entities are open to curruption.
Also you might end up with multiple private entities with different agendas and different ideas of what protection means (also called militias).
If you want to know how something like this can end, look at the Lebanon. Multiple militias, all supporting the agendas of a different part of the population. It ultimately caused the country to descend into chaos and anarchy. Many people died.
I dont want to live in a country that does not have a government run military.

[JohnSmith]

I agree with all your points Skipjack, but we know that governments are also pretty open to corruption. I think that's just the human condition.

[Skipjack]

The British Government was actively supporting opium smuggling to counter the Empire's enormous trade deficit with China, where opium was illegal.
Drawing any conclusions about drug legalization from that seems difficult at best.

Learn your history!
Opium trade was legalized in China after the second Opium war.
This was succeeded by the almost complete downfall of the Chinese society. This ultimately resulted in the Boxer Rebellion (some people just had enough of it, and rightfully so).

[alexjrgreen]

The British Government was actively supporting opium smuggling to counter the Empire's enormous trade deficit with China, where opium was illegal.
Drawing any conclusions about drug legalization from that seems difficult at best.

Learn your history!
Opium trade was legalized in China after the second Opium war.
This was succeeded by the almost complete downfall of the Chinese society. This ultimately resulted in the Boxer Rebellion (some people just had enough of it, and rightfully so).

Legalized at the point of a gun, by the people pushing the opium. After they'd spent years encouraging drug smuggling during prohibition.

Not a particularly enlightening comparison.

[Skipjack]

Legalized at the point of a gun, by the people pushing the opium. After they'd spent years encouraging drug smuggling during prohibition.

Ahem, what? Legalized is legalized. Sure the Chinese did not like that the British forced them to legalize it. Those Chinese were not stupid after all, well those not all high on opium anyway.
So why is that comparison not correct?
There was free legal trade, free legal consumption and selling.
What did it do for the Chinese? Nothing good, so much is clear.

[alexjrgreen]

Legalized at the point of a gun, by the people pushing the opium. After they'd spent years encouraging drug smuggling during prohibition.

Ahem, what? Legalized is legalized. Sure the Chinese did not like that the British forced them to legalize it. Those Chinese were not stupid after all, well those not all high on opium anyway.
So why is that comparison not correct?
There was free legal trade, free legal consumption and selling.
What did it do for the Chinese? Nothing good, so much is clear.

When alcohol was legalized after Prohibition, there were laws in place to control its sale.

After losing two disastrous wars, China was in a state of political collapse, and in no position to control the impact of deliberately cheap opium on an already disillusioned population.

[Skipjack]

After losing two disastrous wars, China was in a state of political collapse, and in no position to control the impact of deliberately cheap opium on an already disillusioned population.

That is it? That is your reason why it would go better in the US than it did in China?
You are being serious?

[TDPerk]

"That is it? That is your reason why it would go better in the US than it did in China?
You are being serious?"

Skipjack, I completely agree. Everyone knows the US is rent by warlords and lawlessness, the courts quit sitting years ago, and society lost all cohesion in decades past. We'd of course have results like China, because we're so much like them then.

[Skipjack]

Skipjack, I completely agree. Everyone knows the US is rent by warlords and lawlessness, the courts quit sitting years ago, and society lost all cohesion in decades past.

Define warlords, define lawlessness in this context please.
The US has its crime problems and it is fighting wars pretty much constantly somewhere.

We'd of course have results like China, because we're so much like them then.

Maybe not, but maybe you would. I would not want to bet the existance of my country, my society, maybe even the lives of my children on this.
Once you have done this, you will have a very hard time going back and it might take a lot of fighting and economical ruin to go back to where we are now.
I would not want to risk that I would not want to be the politician making that bet.