Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Barakistan

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.

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.

Barak I always enjoy reading your post and I find myself agreeing with you a lot.
But I believe a Barakistan system would fall victim to the very same thing that our current system has all but died from.
Mans uncanny ability to mess things up. Man is never satisfied and this has and will always be his undoing.
Any societal system has to be maintained, and as we all know to many people are lazy and apathetic. This leaves the work to fewer people and these people do not always agree. Some are dedicated to the system and work diligently to preserve it. But others are using the freedom that the system gives them to try to make changes. Individuals that do this are not much of a concern it is when they form groups that they become a problem. Some want change so they can satisfy their greed and power lust. Some want to make changes to protect others whether they want it or not. So slowly the system starts to erode and history repeats it's self once again.
It is not the system that fails man it is man that fails the system.

Pat

So you are suggesting that there can be no system without a controlling government? Will individuals taking control of their own lives some how turn us into base war mongers?
Is it government that makes man civil?

Pat

Your objection is a restatement of the classic, "Man must be governed, for he is incapable of governing himself." The classic response, of course, is, "How then can he govern others?"

So you are suggesting that there can be no system without a controlling government? Will individuals taking control of their own lives some how turn us into base war mongers?
Is it government that makes man civil?

Laws make men civil. Laws cannot exist in any meaningful way without someone in authority to enforce them.

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'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!

You have yet to explain how the Law Merchant worked so well for much longer than the US has been in existence with no coercive enforcement whatever.

Very true, which is why in every case where men are permitted to rule other men, tyranny is the result. Much better that law rule over men, than that men do.

Laws are inanimate objects. When all is said and done it's man ruling over man.

Control can be taken by less than forceful means.
Those who hold the gold will always have the ability to control others.Those who lack scruples will take advantage of this ability. The need for basic necessities will always provide them with submissive victims willing or not.

Pat

The colonies had no one in authority to enforce laws??