TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Rave Act 2
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

joeh152, i think you misunderstood what I was saying, i probably phrased it wrong. As you probably know, the American government is not exactly in favor of a culture that electronic music promotes. for them, all EDM does is cause people top take ecstacy or any other type of drug. They would gladly shut down every single club in the US if they could. What i'm saying is that it's the people who take drugs in clubs that they government concentrates on. they do now see the other side of the story...the people like you and me who go to clubs or EDM events for the music, not to take drugs.
I think that it's a good idea to crack down on druggies in clubs. it'll help to promote the scene as a good one, not a drug-infested one.
What I meant by my earlier comment was that the people who do take drugs in clubs are the ones that the government will continue to concentrate on, and they will be the ones that will ulitmately cause the closing of every club in the US.


And to correct your earlier comment...i've been to many rock/metal concerts, and I've often seen people shooting up and snorting, not just smoking pot.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter No! This is entirely the wrong conclusion. The ones to blame are the narcissistic tyrants who violate our natural rights with this sort of rancid authoritarian bullshit.

so you condone the use of drugs in clubs?

quote:

Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 joeh152, i think you misunderstood what I was saying, i probably phrased it wrong. As you probably know, the American government is not exactly in favor of a culture that electronic music promotes. for them, all EDM does is cause people top take ecstacy or any other type of drug. They would gladly shut down every single club in the US if they could. What i'm saying is that it's the people who take drugs in clubs that they government concentrates on. they do now see the other side of the story...the people like you and me who go to clubs or EDM events for the music, not to take drugs. I think that it's a good idea to crack down on druggies in clubs. it'll help to promote the scene as a good one, not a drug-infested one. What I meant by my earlier comment was that the people who do take drugs in clubs are the ones that the government will continue to concentrate on, and they will be the ones that will ulitmately cause the closing of every club in the US. And to correct your earlier comment...i've been to many rock/metal concerts, and I've often seen people shooting up and snorting, not just smoking pot.

Well yes, electronic music would have a much better name if people didn't take drugs in clubs. If clubs were able to stop people taking drugs in to clubs, through increased searching, then alot less people would be going, and it still wouldn't stamp it out. So, it's impossible to stop people, short of closing the clubs down.

Here in the UK, the police obviously know that 80% of people in places like Gatecrasher & Godskitchen are on/in possesion of class a drugs, but they are obviously taking a blind why, otherwise they would keep raiding clubs.

Proper clubs are great, not just for the music but also the nice people. Other clubs are full of drunk idiots, who are ready to start a fight with anyone.. and we dont want our proper clubs to get like that.


.... Or something.

quote:

Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 joeh152, i think you misunderstood what I was saying, i probably phrased it wrong. As you probably know, the American government is not exactly in favor of a culture that electronic music promotes. for them, all EDM does is cause people top take ecstacy or any other type of drug. They would gladly shut down every single club in the US if they could. What i'm saying is that it's the people who take drugs in clubs that they government concentrates on. they do now see the other side of the story...the people like you and me who go to clubs or EDM events for the music, not to take drugs. I think that it's a good idea to crack down on druggies in clubs. it'll help to promote the scene as a good one, not a drug-infested one. What I meant by my earlier comment was that the people who do take drugs in clubs are the ones that the government will continue to concentrate on, and they will be the ones that will ulitmately cause the closing of every club in the US. And to correct your earlier comment...i've been to many rock/metal concerts, and I've often seen people shooting up and snorting, not just smoking pot.

The government isn't cracking down upon the EDM scene just because a consistent beat sounds dumb. I don't think they are even cracking down on it because drug use does happen in clubs/raves. The reason I think that the government is cracking down is because of the all pervasive attitude that drugs are a part of the music in raves. Like I stated in the post in the chill out room, there are tables selling candy, pacifiers, vicks, face masks, etc. Raves shut down water supplies so they can sell $10 waters. The list goes on. Then you have these 48 hour specials showing to the public JUST how rediculous these events are and of course there's going to be a massive effort by the government to eliminate this threat. If there was just the slightest bit of discretion such that raves don't stand out when you compare them to hip-hop events, rock concerts, etc., NONE of this would be happening.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The government IS the people in the form of a representative democracy. If you wanted to get into technicalities than you can say that the entire world is living the collectivist lie because there is no true democracy. And personally, I wouldn't WANT to live in a country with direct democracy .... I've seen some of the effects direct democracy has yielded in California and the such. We might as well simply instate mob rule.

I think you're missing the point. Even if we lived in a direct democracy, it would still be improper to say that "we are freely doing this to ourselves." This is because "we" do not have a singular consciousness, but are instead a group of individuals acting in diverse ways. If it were a direct democracy, the people doing this to us would not be "we" or "us", it would be just those people who voted for it.

quote:

Very well, then I want my natural rights invoked to NOT pay for the health care of said drug addict when he overdoses. If one wants to enjoy the benefits society provides than they must adhere to the rules and laws that society sets.

Well you can bet your bottom dollar you'll never see me advocating socialized medicine! But even if I were, the argument that society has a right to tell us not do so something merely because it increases our chances of requiring medical treatment is one that reduces to absurdity.

Might as well ban sports - lots of people get injured doing that and I don't want to pay for it. For that matter, car crashes really rack up some big time medical bills, so I think it's time to outlaw the automobile. Following this course of reasoning, there would soon be very few activities one would be allowed to partake in.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew this would be a proper argument if everybody had equal skills and equal chances... but we don't live in a perfect world, some are smarter then others, some are just meant to die of a drug overdose... so it's our socity's job to make the world as equal as possible...

This is one of the most frightening, downright bone-chilling sentiments I've read in a long time. I highly recommend you read "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut - it exposes the myth of the egalitarian utopia for what it really is.

quote:

Originally posted by Occrider Essentially, the only government one can have where all natural rights are respected is an anarchist government.

No, a government where all natural rights are respected is not an anarchist government. In an anarchy, natural rights of individuals would be violated all the time by other individuals or groups. The government where our natural rights are respected is precisely the government that intervenes to prevent each and every direct usurpation of natural rights by the people against each other, and does nothing else.

quote:

Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 so you condone the use of drugs in clubs?

Of course! It's none of my business what people choose to do to themselves. But even if I didn't, this proposed legislation would not be an efficacious way of controlling drug use.

Cheers,

Arbiter

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Of course! It's none of my business what people choose to do to themselves. But even if I didn't, this proposed legislation would not be an efficacious way of controlling drug use.

I see your point. I think that it's true that people should just be allowed to do what they want. My only argument is that they shouldn't do it in clubs, because it ruins it for everyone else.

quote:

Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 I see your point. I think that it's true that people should just be allowed to do what they want. My only argument is that they shouldn't do it in clubs, because it ruins it for everyone else.

Word. Goddamn druggies :P

they will never stop raves and these are a bunch of uptight political geezers that have no knowledge of youth. Raves will live forever. P.S. the same thing is happening in France, they alloted ravers a patch of construction site off of a rural highway for a recent rave, try that one. The good thing about electronica is that the venue really doesn't matter its about the music.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan they will never stop raves and these are a bunch of uptight political geezers that have no knowledge of youth. Raves will live forever. P.S. the same thing is happening in France, they alloted ravers a patch of construction site off of a rural highway for a recent rave, try that one. The good thing about electronica is that the venue really doesn't matter its about the music.

yea, but theey're more flexible with that kind of stuff in Europe.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I think you're missing the point. Even if we lived in a direct democracy, it would still be improper to say that "we are freely doing this to ourselves." This is because "we" do not have a singular consciousness, but are instead a group of individuals acting in diverse ways. If it were a direct democracy, the people doing this to us would not be "we" or "us", it would be just those people who voted for it.

If you look at what I was replying to you would see how it does apply in context. When replying to somebody external to the US then the citizens of the US are "we."


Believe me, you will not find a bigger trumpter of individuality.

Ok I meant to get back to this but it slipped my mind

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I think you're missing the point. Even if we lived in a direct democracy, it would still be improper to say that "we are freely doing this to ourselves." This is because "we" do not have a singular consciousness, but are instead a group of individuals acting in diverse ways. If it were a direct democracy, the people doing this to us would not be "we" or "us", it would be just those people who voted for it.

Very well, I agree. Government, will typically always result in the rule of the majority over the minority in some form or another.

quote:

Well you can bet your bottom dollar you'll never see me advocating socialized medicine! But even if I were, the argument that society has a right to tell us not do so something merely because it increases our chances of requiring medical treatment is one that reduces to absurdity.

But the point I was getting at was that if every individual has a right to free medicine supplied by the state, then that person should not have the right to abuse said priveledge by violating certain health standards set by society. Either which way you cut it, somebody's rights are being trampled on. It's kind of like car insurance, should everybody have equal coverage and equal payment? If I choose to consistentely speed, get in accidents, and am a general poor driver, should others be penalized for my recklessness?

quote:

Might as well ban sports - lots of people get injured doing that and I don't want to pay for it. For that matter, car crashes really rack up some big time medical bills, so I think it's time to outlaw the automobile. Following this course of reasoning, there would soon be very few activities one would be allowed to partake in.

Costs deemed worthwile by society. Your point does not go unnoticed however, I suppose in a "perfect" world, addicts would have the ultimate right to use drugs, and society would have the right to abandon its care of the individual.

quote:

No, a government where all natural rights are respected is not an anarchist government. In an anarchy, natural rights of individuals would be violated all the time by other individuals or groups. The government where our natural rights are respected is precisely the government that intervenes to prevent each and every direct usurpation of natural rights by the people against each other, and does nothing else.

And how is this government going to be paid for? A tax for protection? What of those who do not seek to pay for protection? Wouldn't that once again result in the violation of their natural rights? What of any public good for that matter? Education, roads, parks, trade, oversight, fire departments, etc? I think organized society and modern government inherentely tramples upon somebody's rights because it must do so to function.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.