Tottenham Riots

[Pazienza]

That's not libertarianism - certainly not in the philosophy of J S Mill - one of the greatest advocates of libertarianism who took the trouble to explain his reasoning in detail.

I think that this is true. I don't believe he would be terribly happy to see his name invoked by many modern libertarians in the way that they do. I'll see if I can dig out some stuff if I can be ar$ed, but I think a lot of the appeal to Mill is based on selective quoting to support a fairly extreme version of libertarianism.

 

[jthetrader]

Hard drugs are freely available now. Just look at the results. That's not libertarianism - certainly not in the philosophy of J S Mill - one of the greatest advocates of libertarianism who took the trouble to explain his reasoning in detail.

Well I'm not JS Mill, I'm just someone who thinks drug prohibition is a bad idea and was implemented for the wrong reasons anyway (control rather than protection). What you stick into your own body is your choice, if it is anyone else's choice then that is like saying they have a more basic right over your body than you do. That sounds a lot worse than what pimps do.

 

[Pazienza]

Libertarianism in its extremes can become, well, restrictive; it robs you of your independent thought, as do all ideologies in massive doses.

I'd tend to agree with you if you mean what I think you mean.

I think the danger in libertarianism is that it can lead its adherents to embrace or accept licentiousness - a position that no-one's pleasures or whims should be restricted unless they do harm (by which they mean solely immediately measurable and visible harm) to others.

This I think inevitably leads to tyranny. Man is an animal, a "wolf to man". His base nature must be controlled someone or it will ultimately overwhelm what civilisation there is within him. This I believe that man must either control himself, or there will be controls from without, in the form of an ever mightier and more restrictive state. Indeed, I think we are seeing this in the UK.

The unbridled pursuit of short-term pleasures also leads to a stupefied populace which is happy to see the power of the state grow so long as it remains largely free to continue stupefying itself. Freedom requires vigilance and sacrifice.

Ultimately therefore I believe that only a moral people can truly be a free people.

 

[DionysusToast]

Getting her hooked on it? As in tying her down and forcing the needle into her arm? No that's not fine. However, getting a heroin-addicted employee may not be a terrible idea for them. They are exploiters, true, but that is the way the human race has always done things; you get someone dumber/weaker/more vulnerable than you to do your dirty work, it is sad but it has always gone on.



It isn't really funding the Taliban, most British heroin comes from Turkey.

Again, buying some cocaine does not mean you killed anyone in Colombia, if they want to kill each then that is their business, no?



Agreed, but there is a difference between being scum and being a criminal? Most used car salesmen are scum, most police officers (at least the ones I've met) are scum etc

Sigh...

If preying on the weak is OK, then I presume child prostitution is OK too, right?

As for the Columbians, it would be worth you picking up a copy of "Escobar" by Roberto Escobar. This is not an issue of drug dealers vs police. Unless of course, you have no problem with someone putting a bomb in a shopping centre. Even Pablo's brothers best efforts of painting a pretty picture can't hide the despair that cocaine has brought to the people of Columbia.

As for Heroin & Turkey - Turkey does not grow poppies, it is a processing/trafficking centre. I know you are trolling but please try to at least have your facts lined up.

It is amusing that you are such a "defender of the weak" when it comes to black drug dealers carrying guns but not so much when it comes to their victims.

I presume you are a card-carrying liberal, right?

 

[0007]

I think that this is true. I don't believe he would be terribly happy to see his name invoked by many modern libertarians in the way that they do. I'll see if I can dig out some stuff if I can be ar$ed, but I think a lot of the appeal to Mill is based on selective quoting to support a fairly extreme version of libertarianism.

Agree with that. Mill was strong on the "harm principle" which some modern libertarians don't seem to embrace.

 

[Pazienza]

What you stick into your own body is your choice, if it is anyone else's choice then that is like saying they have a more basic right over your body than you do. That sounds a lot worse than what pimps do.

This is just the kind of situation that I would be referring to. In principle, I agree with you. I cherish the old-fashioned British idea that what one does is nobody's business but one's own.

However, I would use that as a starting point, a principle that should only be restricted by direst necessity. I think hard drugs are one such case where the state is justified in using the law to protect both the user and those around them.

For the same reason I accept that the state can prosecute me if I do not wear a seat-belt. Few people disagree with this, although I actually think that it is also perfectly respectable and rational to say that the state has no business whatsoever in demanding that we buckle up.

For me it comes down again to the complexities of the human condition and the (in my opinion) inability of any single ideology or weltanschauung to answer all of our needs.

Maybe I'm a pragmatic libertarian conservative?

 

[pboyles]

So I decide to carry a big stick to protect myself. I go out, and some feckless chav carrying a knife mugs me. Bollox, some feckin use that stick was, I'll get a kife.

Next day I go out brandishing my shiny new knife, and another feckless chav mugs me with a gun. Bugger, no feckin use carryin a knife, I'd better get me a gun.

Next day I go out totin me shooter, and I get mugged by a gang of chavs, with AK47's (cos they have be tooled up on account of every tom dick wot thay want to rob is carrying knives, chains, sticks and shooters these days FFS)

What the hell do I do then ? buy a rocket launcher, or fly around in a fully armed apache helicopter for christs sake on the odd chance I need to protect myself ?

It might not escalate at the rate I suggest, but it does escalate, and its not really the solution. I might at a push agree that someone should be allowed to protect their home with firearms, but allowing people to walk the streets tooled up, sounds like a bad idea.

I'm sure hoco will disagree with me, co he's always tooled up when he goes out, and noone ever gets shot where he lives.

I've joked in the past that the way to prevent terrorism is to give everyone who gets on a plane a gun, and I still think thats not a bad idea, but I wouldnt want to roll the idea out on a wider scale.

I tell you what Hare, things have gone downhill badly in Malta since I lived there. The chavs were selling timeshares then, not AK47s. I suppose they used all the cats for target practice.

 

[Pazienza]

I tell you what Hare, things have gone downhill badly in Malta since I lived there. The chavs were selling timeshares then, not AK47s. I suppose they used all the cats for target practice.

I loved it in Malta when we went on holiday a couple of years ago, absolutely lovely place. Good food, great atmosphere, very reasonable prices, local plonk very drinkable etc.

The Hilton was superb, and not bad cost-wise considering how good it was. If anyone wants a nice, relaxing holiday I'd heartily recommend it.

We will definitely be going back .

 

[Vorbis]

LMAO!

'providing' prostitutes. That's a new word for it. I presume getting a young gal hooked on heroin and then pimping her out is fine, right?

I also suppose that being involved in a trade that has caused thousands upon thousands of deaths in Columbia is OK too. Funding the Taliban? No problemo.

These people are scum.

You need to buy a new pair of glasses - see if they can cure your short sightedness.

You are highlighting the problems of prohibition rather than the problems of the prohibited. If you wanted a drink in the US in 20's you'd have had to buy it from gangster scum.

 

[Pazienza]

You are highlighting the problems of prohibition rather than the problems of the prohibited. If you wanted a drink in the US in 20's you'd have had to buy it from gangster scum.

Or you could have just gone round to Joe Kennedy's house.

 

[jthetrader]

Sigh...

If preying on the weak is OK, then I presume child prostitution is OK too, right?

It comes down to consent in my view, a court will take a dim view of anyone who tries to claim a child consented to being a prostitute; on the other hand, a 20 year old or a 30 year old? Either way it should be a matter, initially, for the civil courts. No crime of being a prostitute.

As for the Columbians, it would be worth you picking up a copy of "Escobar" by Roberto Escobar. This is not an issue of drug dealers vs police. Unless of course, you have no problem with someone putting a bomb in a shopping centre. Even Pablo's brothers best efforts of painting a pretty picture can't hide the despair that cocaine has brought to the people of Columbia.

Escobar was a legend.Probably a psychopath as well, but a legend nonetheless. He waged a war, I don't think his actions were any worse than what the US or Britain has done around the world.

As for Heroin & Turkey - Turkey does not grow poppies, it is a processing/trafficking centre. I know you are trolling but please try to at least have your facts lined up.

I'm not trolling. And since opium isn't heroin until it is processed, in Turkey, it would be fair to say that heroin comes from there, no?

Just because I'm not a statist means I must be trolling in your view?

It is amusing that you are such a "defender of the weak" when it comes to black drug dealers carrying guns but not so much when it comes to their victims.

I presume you are a card-carrying liberal, right?

No, I hate benefits, government run healthcare, gun restrictions, drug prohibition, laws against self-defence, anti-death penalty c*** If I were American I'd be a Ron Paul Republican, or a Libertarian Party supporter.

We just disagree that drug users are victims of anything but their own stupidity.

I am not a defender of the weak, I'm, in my view, a defender of what is right. And anyway I ain't defending much, just putting my opinions across on an internet forum (doesn't take much courage).

 

[Vorbis]

Or you could have just gone round to Joe Kennedy's house.

That's who I meant

 

[jthetrader]

This is just the kind of situation that I would be referring to. In principle, I agree with you. I cherish the old-fashioned British idea that what one does is nobody's business but one's own.

Ah yes, negative civil liberties. :clap: We lost our way after WW2.

However, I would use that as a starting point, a principle that should only be restricted by direst necessity. I think hard drugs are one such case where the state is justified in using the law to protect both the user and those around them.

Where there aren't any direct residual effects I disagree, so letting off nukes in your garden shouldn't be legal (unless you can prove it isn't damaging the wider environment),.

For the same reason I accept that the state can prosecute me if I do not wear a seat-belt. Few people disagree with this, although I actually think that it is also perfectly respectable and rational to say that the state has no business whatsoever in demanding that we buckle up.

I agree, and don't get me started on speed limits or drink driving laws. If I get pissed, drive at 100mph and kill someone I'll do the jail time for it, don't lock me up just because I'm drunk and driving fast on the presumption I may hurt someone.

For me it comes down again to the complexities of the human condition and the (in my opinion) inability of any single ideology or weltanschauung to answer all of our needs.

Maybe I'm a pragmatic libertarian conservative?

I guess so. There has to be an element of pragmatism for any philosophical position to become a political one.

 

[jthetrader]

Or you could have just gone round to Joe Kennedy's house.

Don't blame the poor old Kennedys, it isn't their fault they're Irish and pathologically required to consume alcohol.

 

[Pazienza]

That's who I meant

LOL

 

[jthetrader]

He wasn't shooting at the police until they laid seige to his property. Was he?

 

[Splitlink]

Don't blame the poor old Kennedys, it isn't their fault they're Irish and pathologically required to consume alcohol.

And eat potatoes, of course. That's why they emigrated. I wonder where we would be today if Jack Kennedy had been the president of Ireland in 1964?

Tell me if I'm getting off topic.

 

[jthetrader]

And eat potatoes, of course. That's why they emigrated.

 

[jthetrader]

And eat potatoes, of course. That's why they emigrated. I wonder where we would be today if Jack Kennedy had been the president of Ireland in 1964?

Tell me if I'm getting off topic.

You are, but I for one am happy to discuss it lol.

Who knows, but the true paddies and the plastic paddies love each other equally. JFK is worshipped by the real Irish and the Irish in America (and England to a lesser extent) love their homeland.

I don't think Irish-Americans help the debate about Ireland very much, because they are so fiercely Nationalist; much of the of the IRA's funding came from the US. They don't acknowledge the realities and the need for pragmatism. Not that they don't have the right to an opinion.

 

[Splitlink]

I hope that they appreciate that the UK helped over this latest financial crisis that they had, to the tune of several billions. After all, it was a Euro zone problem and the UK is not in it. Not much help from the Boston clique that time.

I'm sure that this has little to do with Tottenham-