quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Wait... so you're confusing me here... you're saying that everything should be tolerated provided it isn't harmful; harmful to be defined by legislators (and/or the judiciary), and then questioning the legitimacy of that which legislators and the courts base their definition of harmful on? How can you say legislators and the courts should determine what is to be tolerated then question the whether or not they have made sound judgments regarding same in the past? Why would you give them that authority if you question whether it has been well exercised traditionally?

they should derive their definition of harmful from the declaration of independence!

quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

everyone has the right to their life, their liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - inherent in this definition is that these rights not infringe upon the rights of any other, as all men are created equal.

___________________

quote:

philippe - In MEXICO says: ur the most clever pothead i know philippe - In MEXICO says: u deserve a fucking medal

quote:

Originally posted by prolikewhoa they should derive their definition of harmful from the declaration of independence!

But the declaration a) does not apply to any place but the US and North Vietnam (which essetially plagerized it for their own declaration of independance, and b) the declaration is not part of the constitution and has no legal weight.

My question remains; if you think they have a track record of poor decisions regarding tolerance then why would you let them be the arbiters of what should be tolerated?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

Let's be serious....

quote:

Originally posted by prolikewhoa let's say a person smokes crack. they stay at home, and do not endanger anyone. i think this should be legal. i do not think this person should have their property seized and be thrown in jail.

Whose home?

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Whose home?

their own

___________________

quote:

philippe - In MEXICO says: ur the most clever pothead i know philippe - In MEXICO says: u deserve a fucking medal

See, now I know you're full of shit. Crackheads don't own homes!

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard But the declaration a) does not apply to any place but the US and North Vietnam (which essetially plagerized it for their own declaration of independance, and b) the declaration is not part of the constitution and has no legal weight. My question remains; if you think they have a track record of poor decisions regarding tolerance then why would you let them be the arbiters of what should be tolerated?

i'm not sure how we got to this point of contention. all i'm saying is that there are inherent hypocrisies in what is illegal and what is not. those hypocrisies don't make sense. if something is only harmful to an individual, and that individual is a consenting adult, the government shouldn't have the right to throw that individual in jail for doing it.

do i have the logistic means to set out how we should go about changing laws and deciding what to and what not to legalize? no. however, off the top of my head, in a perfect world, i would legalize gambling, prostitution, illegal drugs, bigamy, polygamy, sodomy, gay marriage, and suicide/assisted suicide.

does this mean i agree or want to partake in any of these things? no. it just means that adults have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they want to.

there would be inevitable controversy and problems doing this, but i think in the end we would have a more free, just society. we would unburden our prison/judicial/law enforcement systems immensely and concentrate on real crimes with real victims. emotional victims don't count. it may hurt someone's family that they chose to buy drugs with their paychecks, but that doesn't mean we should throw that person in jail for hurting their family. let me use an absurd example - imagine if i could throw my ex boyfriend in jail because he broke up with me. i was hurt, right? doesn't that make it wrong?

right/wrong are personal, subjective measures of morality. the government should only be concerned if actions hurt the person or property of another.

just my opinion.

___________________

quote:

philippe - In MEXICO says: ur the most clever pothead i know philippe - In MEXICO says: u deserve a fucking medal

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On See, now I know you're full of shit. Crackheads don't own homes!

they do on TV!!!

/breaking bad

___________________

quote:

philippe - In MEXICO says: ur the most clever pothead i know philippe - In MEXICO says: u deserve a fucking medal

quote:

Originally posted by prolikewhoa

I suppose my contention is with the idea that anyone group of people should be given the authority to determine what is tolerable. Personally, I prefer the current system where people are free to express their objections and everyone else is free to either accept those views, dismiss them out of hand, or challenge them directly.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I suppose my contention is with the idea that anyone group of people should be given the authority to determine what is tolerable. Personally, I prefer the current system where people are free to express their objections and everyone else is free to either accept those views, dismiss them out of hand, or challenge them directly.

right, but people can get thrown in jail for things that the current state doesn't tolerate that i don't think should be considered crimes. that's all i'm saying. i don't want a group of people deciding anything for me. i want to decide for myself, as long as i'm not hurting anyone.

___________________

quote:

philippe - In MEXICO says: ur the most clever pothead i know philippe - In MEXICO says: u deserve a fucking medal

quote:

Originally posted by prolikewhoa right, but people can get thrown in jail for things that the current state doesn't tolerate that i don't think should be considered crimes. that's all i'm saying. i don't want a group of people deciding anything for me. i want to decide for myself, as long as i'm not hurting anyone.

You can't. We live in a community and give the courts and armed police forces the right to dispense our laws. Somebody has to do it.
Majority rules.

___________________
Like Progressive and Deep House? Grab my latest mix below
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s=#.UAv1rbRo3h4