Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Barakistan

BTW - some of those things, I have seen. Others have been seen by some that I trust.

The problem with unrestricted drug use and anarchy is both assume that people act in their own best self-interest and the interest of their neighbors. They don't, which is why folks prey on their neighbors and why gangs exist...a means of bad self-government when a just authority abrogates its responsibilty.

Thousands of crack-addicted babies are the result of drug addiction, and they have no voice or choice in their addiction. There is no such thing as drugs pricing themselves fairly here, or anywhere else, as a lot of the most addictive drugs (heroin, cocaine) come from outside the U.S. Which is another reason against a free drug-market economy.

All of it would be perfectly legal in a free society; hence prices would be very low: no more making a rock of crack for a nickel and selling it for twenty dollars. Mexican drug cartels would sell their drugs and do their kidnappings and beheadings in the US where Prohibition gives them high prices; whatever drugs Barakistanis wanted would undoubtedly be produced in Barakistan very cheaply.

Adventurous Barakistanis might even sell drugs in the US, where they might possibly out-compete the Mexicans, since Mexican druggies have the overhead of having to buy Mexican politicians as well as US ones. Barakistanis would only have to buy US politicians.


No Mexican drug cartel could take over even a decent-sized city--at least not without first corrupting its State officials. Barakistan would have no State officials to corrupt; corrupt judges and PPAs and such would simply be run out of business by uncorrupted ones.

How so? I imagine a private judge would happily take whatever business came his way, whether it was an appeal or not.

There'd have to be some sort of traditional limit on appeals, of course, after which nobody would pay attention anymore. I think probably two appeals, for a total of three judgments, ought to work pretty well. If you agree to three different courts, and two or more of them rule against you, your case is pretty much dead, I'd say.


The State shouldn't ever kill its subjects for any reason, no; but if Smith offends against Jones, then Jones is the only one with the moral standing to determine what the punishment should be.

If he decides the punishment should be death, and he's willing to carry out that sentence and take the responsibility for it, then that's his business and nobody else's.

Unless it was perfectly clear to all and sundry that Jones A) was guilty, and B) deserved to die, though, and it probably wouldn't, it'd be an almighty stupid thing to do for Smith to kill him (or take much of any other drastic action against him) without investing in a judge's verdict first.

Afghans are brown people.

Barakistan would have no State officials to corrupt; corrupt judges and PPAs and such would simply be run out of business by uncorrupted ones.
++++++++++++++++++++

What if the non-corrupt ones got taken in by one too many Freedom/Liberty crack festivals and meth parades and the corrupt guys were stronger and pounced on the oppurtunity?

I mean, the non-corrupt don't become corrupt inside this life-long siesta compound merely by exercising their liberty seeking right to smoke crack and meth all day, right? I mean, they have to do something really bad to become corrupt like smoking someone else's kid's crack without asking first,right? Am I getting the gist of it all?

I'm not sure: I have no idea what you're talking about.

Nope.

You'll get all that and more with the legal drug alchohol, along with health-threatening toxicity. (Yeah, I drink... grin...)

There are a couple (and there could be more invented someday) drugs that are, truly, as bad as the anti's would have us believe that ALL drugs are. I admit, as with most things philosophical, there's a grey area there, a fly in the ointment of legalization. Meth comes to mind.

But, most are fairly benign and possibly even beneficial in occasional use.

But that misses the point. Is this my [bleep]' head, my conciousness, my body... Or not? Is the State in charge of my conciousness, or am I? Do I have the right to do something unhealthy, or don't I?

How can someone be free, if the government asserts a right to control their conciousness?

As to the negatives, and they will exist, simply apply the same logic used with guns or cars. Plenty of death and mayhem comes from the ownership and use of those. Punish actual criminal acts, not the potential to commit same. Simple.

As to having sand in my mangina you are damn right I do! I'm sick of your bullshit. Come on, man! You are better than that. Stop using this place as your personal dumping ground for whatever it is that's bugging you. This is a forum with 10's of thousands of members. And YOU, sir, stand out as the single person most likely to be a rude arsehole to someone and ruin a thread.

I do, seriously, believe you are better than that. If you are- buck up! If you aren't- STFU!

I'm all for that.

If one person hurts another, he ought to be prosecuted for it. Taking drugs hurts only oneself (except in the case of pregnancy, see below); selling drugs is a consensual business transaction. There's no moral or Constitutional basis for laws against either.


How many drug-addicted babies were born per year before drugs were made illegal? The War On Drugs hasn't exactly improved that number, has it?


Prohibition makes drugs artificially expensive. High prices attract suppliers from all over. Repeal Prohibition, and prices will fall. Suppliers who must charge high prices will lose business. Except for drugs made from plants not easily growable in the US, local markets will replace higher-overhead foreign ones.

The lie was about my new found friend.

Not in academia in any capacity so you reeled in nothing there either.

So what exactly are you babbling on about? Are you saying those kinds of incidents would happen if drugs were legalized? Since drugs are currently illegal the incidents that you speak of must be in theory?

So why don't you stalwarts of purity want a return to prohibition? Think you might start getting the shakes or what?

No more than my Sicilian father.

While I oppose Barak on the subject of anarchy, he's right on the money with regard to his libertarian position on drug legalization. It's being illegal is what makes it worth anyone's while to import it and "push" it in the United States. Also, people have a right to consume anything they like, no matter how harmful to themselves (such as trans fats, alcohol, or heroin), so long as they are held responsible for any crimes or torts they commit. For a real crime or tort, there needs to be a victim apart from the actor himself.

Or many of my Indian coworkers.

Still: brown.

You missed my age by quite a bit. And what is it with big government promoters (such as yourself) always claiming anyone that disagrees with them is in high school?

You have an odd way of classifying people, brown, non-brown...they're not brown to me, any more than Americans are brown.

As for drug addiction, the simple view that making drugs legal solves problems doesn't pay homage to the laws of supply and demand. When drugs are legalized, it pretty well stands to reason that the usage goes up. That's true with any thing of value...add to the supply, usage goes out the window. Econ 101.

Look at tobacco use, which is regulated increasingly over the yeatrs. Supply in the 60s, when about 70 percent of people used tobacco (I think it was 69% of all Americans) was high, taxes low, and usage spiked. When our government raised taxes and costs, the supply went down over here (imports went up overseas).

It's specious to argue otherwise. The price of de-regulating drugs is a much higher usage, and while the price MAY drop in a country where there is no regulation, that won't be the case...it would be like tobacco and alcohol, and now, even soft drinks are being looked at for "sin taxes." Higher taxes mean a different class of criminals, and dealers will still deal illegally to sell a cheaper, tax-free product, and make lots of money. At our ultimate expense.

Individuals may chose to use drugs, their choice, and few go to jail for simply using drugs. However, there is an ancilary sociatal cost for it, and nothing can change that. I don't care what a person does so long as it doesn't affect me and so long as it's somewhat moral, but drug use affects us all in costs of addiction. It's both a moral cost and a financial cost. I don't intend to pay for additional services for drug addicts that increase with drug usage.

Many Americans are brown.

I don't care for the use of hyphenated or prefaced Americans. That's my world, and may be as unobtainable as anarchy is for a governmental system (or lack thereof) but it's still the way I prefer to see it.

BTW, that photo looks photoshopped...the brown buy in front looks like his head has been pasted on.

VADICKHEAD, I thought you were having your account deleted because you couldn't control your mouth?? You a liar too??