Quote:I'm leaving terminology out of it. You're on record stating that you believe people should be allowed to do what they please in the confines of their own home. Why would you support legislation preventing that, regardless of what level it is set at? You're suppose to be all for rights of individuals, no?
I'm not sure what part of this confuses you. As a libertarian I support individual liberty above all else. Since I'm not an anarchist I recognize individual communities will always set a standard of what they do or don't want, that's called law and order.
The level laws are dictated from do matter. I understand your agenda is to create the narrative of hypocrisy but it's simply not the case. There are different levels of authority with different roles that's defined In the constitution.
I love it when statist tell me they have no party, Such an independent thinker huh?
I do not identify with any political party. Unlike you, I'm able to look at things on a case by case basis. It's a nice little red herring you're throwing out there, though. Try harder next time.
Quote:I'm not sure what part of this confuses you. As a libertarian I support individual liberty above all else. Since I'm not an anarchist I recognize individual communities will always set a standard of what they do or don't want, that's called law and order.
The level laws are dictated from do matter. I understand your agenda is to create the narrative of hypocrisy but it's simply not the case. There are different levels of authority with different roles that's defined In the constitution.
It is a case of hypocrisy, though. If you support individual liberty, then how can you support my local government denying me those liberties?
Quote:It is a case of hypocrisy, though. If you support individual liberty, then how can you support my local government denying me those liberties?
It always boils down to anarchy or statism with you. There's other alternatives libertarianism is one of them. Different levels of authority have different roles. Individual liberties are always protected and when it comes down to the most basic levels of where does your liberty infringe on someone else's liberty it's up to the local community to decide. You wanna cut your yard naked fine live in a community that accepts that.
Quote:It always boils down to anarchy or statism with you. There's other alternatives libertarianism is one of them. Different levels of authority have different roles. Individual liberties are always protected and when it comes down to the most basic levels of where does your liberty infringe on someone else's liberty it's up to the local community to decide. You wanna cut your yard naked fine live in a community that accepts that.
So what if my individual liberty
doesn't infringe on someone else's liberty? If I want to have a beer in my house as a 20 year old, how can you support local government telling me that's illegal?
Also, how does me being naked in my own yard infringe one someone else's liberty?
Do liberties of animals count? If I want to partake in animal torture in the confines of my own house, why should local government be able to tell me I can't?
Quote:So what if my individual liberty doesn't infringe on someone else's liberty? If I want to have a beer in my house as a 20 year old, how can you support local government telling me that's illegal?
Also, how does me being naked in my own yard infringe one someone else's liberty?
Do liberties of animals count? If I want to partake in animal torture in the confines of my own house, why should local government be able to tell me I can't?
I've never said I support age limits on alcohol. I've specifically argued against all narcotic laws try and keep up.
Public nudity is a local issue there doesn't have to be laws against it but it's very likely most communities would require you to not be naked in public to live In community.
Quote:I've never said I support age limits on alcohol. I've specifically argued against all narcotic laws try and keep up.
Public nudity is a local issue there doesn't have to be laws against it but it's very likely most communities would require you to not be naked in public to live In community.
It's hard to "keep up" when you keep tap dancing around the point.
Me: "Also, what about minors? Should I legally be allowed to sell meth to a 10 year old? 12? 18?"
You.......
Quote:Can you sell Alcohol to a minor? Your attempt to be ludicrous does nothing to invalidate the argument of a government established to protect only life and property. It's easily established protecting the life of a minor goes hand in hand with restricting their access to narcotics. No one's ever advocated a free for all in narcotics, decriminalization simple refers to the removal of federal laws punishing adults for private consumption of various narcotics.
So what do YOU support? Don't tap dance behind the veil of "local government". I'm asking what EricC85 thinks "individual liberty" entails. Should 20 year olds be allowed to drink alcohol? 18? 14? Should 20 year olds be allowed to use meth? 18? 14?
Who sets those ages? Why? Why does an 18 year old get more individual liberty than a 17 year old? Seems pretty arbitrary when you are suppose to be supporting individual liberty for
all.
So tell me what EricC85 thinks.
Quote:It's hard to "keep up" when you keep tap dancing around the point.
Me: "Also, what about minors? Should I legally be allowed to sell meth to a 10 year old? 12? 18?"
You.......
So what do YOU support? Don't tap dance behind the veil of "local government". I'm asking what EricC85 thinks "individual liberty" entails. Should 20 year olds be allowed to drink alcohol? 18? 14? Should 20 year olds be allowed to use meth? 18? 14?
Who sets those ages? Why? Why does an 18 year old get more individual liberty than a 17 year old? Seems pretty arbitrary when you are suppose to be supporting individual liberty for all.
So tell me what EricC85 thinks.
There is a difference between adulthood and minors. Once a legal adult there should be no restrictions on consumption of narcotics I've made that clear. Laws protecting minors are no different than laws preventing minors from driving cars, owning property, or participating in the electoral process. For the 10000000000 I'm not an anarchist laws have a role to play In society. Government should be established to protect life and property. You want to argue where adulthood begins that's a whole discussion or do you want to argue what laws and at what level they're enforced? You like to make these huge hypotheticals to disenfranchise an argument.
I responds to your ridiculous question about 12 tear olds eating meth. Your suggesting decriminalization of narcotics is supporting minors using narcotics. That's not the case your once again misrepresent a stance. Decriminalization refers specifically to adults (currently adulthood is legally 18).
Now what other irrational assumptions would you like to make today?
Quote:It is a case of hypocrisy, though. If you support individual liberty, then how can you support my local government denying me those liberties?
I already made it clear in the simplest logic possible that a "libertarian" who isn't an anarchist is actually just a severely stunted socialist with a superiority complex about his own beliefs.
If you're trying to get a rational explanation out of one for any of their positions you won't find one, because ultimately like most people the extent of a libertarian's rationality is in justifying their beliefs, not forming them.
Quote:There is a difference between adulthood and minors. Once a legal adult there should be no restrictions on consumption of narcotics I've made that clear. Laws protecting minors are no different than laws preventing minors from driving cars, owning property, or participating in the electoral process. For the 10000000000 I'm not an anarchist laws have a role to play In society. Government should be established to protect life and property. You want to argue where adulthood begins that's a whole discussion or do you want to argue what laws and at what level they're enforced? You like to make these huge hypotheticals to disenfranchise an argument.
I responds to your ridiculous question about 12 tear olds eating meth. Your suggesting decriminalization of narcotics is supporting minors using narcotics. That's not the case your once again misrepresent a stance. Decriminalization refers specifically to adults (currently adulthood is legally 18).
Now what other irrational assumptions would you like to make today?
Wait, what? You
specifically said that you were against
all narcotic laws. Your words, not mine. Why do you feel like it's up to the local government to determine how old someone has to be to drive a car? Smoke a cigarette? Drink a beer? Those three "rights" are given to people at different stages in life (16, 18. and 21). Why do you support local government setting those arbitrary ages for when "adulthood" begins? What if local government decided that people shouldn't be allowed to do meth until they were 30. Doing meth before 30 would be a
criminal act, just like drinking before 21, smoking before 18, and driving before 16. Would you support that?
Quote:I already made it clear in the simplest logic possible that a "libertarian" who isn't an anarchist is actually just a severely stunted socialist with a superiority complex about his own beliefs.
If you're trying to get a rational explanation out of one for any of their positions you won't find one, because ultimately like most people the extent of a libertarian's rationality is in justifying their beliefs, not forming them.
Oh goody your here to tell us all there's only two options socialism and anarchy everyone else is in denial they want socialism lol
Quote:Wait, what? You specifically said that you were against all narcotic laws. Your words, not mine. Why do you feel like it's up to the local government to determine how old someone has to be to drive a car? Smoke a cigarette? Drink a beer? Those three "rights" are given to people at different stages in life (16, 18. and 21). Why do you support local government setting those arbitrary ages for when "adulthood" begins? What if local government decided that people shouldn't be allowed to do meth until they were 30. Doing meth before 30 would be a criminal act, just like drinking before 21, smoking before 18, and driving before 16. Would you support that?
I'm about done letting you play dense I've said it here and other threads I oppose narcotic laws. if there needs to be clarification that is referring only to legal adults than fine yes I'm taking about legal adults that have full legal responsibility for themselves.
The age factor is a nonissue your trying to pin down some arbitrary age when is someone an adult. Right now at 18 your a legal adult there should be no law restricting what you eat smoke drink who you marry love or sleep with what you say think or who you do business with. I know that's going to send you into a panic on how society would fall apart.
Quote:Oh goody your here to tell us all there's only two options socialism and anarchy everyone else is in denial they want socialism lol
You're either for a Big Brother (a societal institution) making sure you do things the way society (the root of socialism) wants things done, or you're about not having society being able to control any of your freedoms.
You can't say you're about freedom while simultaneously espousing a position that socialist institutions of government (no matter the level, federal, state, municipal, or tribal) should be allowed to take away some kind of liberty someone may want to exercise at gunpoint.
Quote:You're either for a Big Brother (a societal institution) making sure you do things the way society (the root of socialism) wants things done, or you're about not having society being able to control any of your freedoms.
You can't say you're about freedom while simultaneously espousing a position that socialist institutions of government (no matter the level, federal, state, municipal, or tribal) should be allowed to take away some kind of liberty someone may want to exercise at gunpoint.
Wrong there's different levels of authority the fed state and town all play different roles.
I'll stop "playing dense" when you stop tap dancing around points and contradicting yourself.
Quote:I've never said I support age limits on alcohol. I've specifically argued against all narcotic laws try and keep up.
But now you support age limits on alcohol if that age limit is 18?
Also, I'm not the one trying to pin down arbitrary ages. I'm saying that there are
already arbitrary ages in place.
16 years old to legally drive a car.
18 years old to smoke a cigarette.
21 years old to drink a beer.
Should all of those be 18 years old (ie. when adulthood begins), or should it be up to local government to decide?
Quote:Wrong there's different levels of authority the fed state and town all play different roles.
Wrong, they all play the same role. Pointing the socialist institutional gun at you and saying, "boy, don't you do what you're think'n 'bout do'n 'less you wanna get shot."
Quote:I'll stop "playing dense" when you stop tap dancing around points and contradicting yourself.
But now you support age limits on alcohol if that age limit is 18?
Also, I'm not the one trying to pin down arbitrary ages. I'm saying that there are already arbitrary ages in place.
16 years old to legally drive a car.
18 years old to smoke a cigarette.
21 years old to drink a beer.
Should all of those be 18 years old (ie. when adulthood begins), or should it be up to local government to decide?
drivers license are state issues so that would be a state issue.
Alcohol, tobacco, narcotics it's all up to the individual once they've reached legal adulthood which is 18. At that point as I've said a million times I oppose any legislation to restrict the individuals choice of private consumption.
There's still laws that about DWI being publicly intoxicated (local issue private property is within there right to refuse service and access) taking care of children while under the influence ( harming others isn't liberty)
Quote:Wrong, they all play the same role. Pointing the socialist institutional gun at you and saying, "boy, don't you do what you're think'n 'bout do'n 'less you wanna get shot."
Lol his coming for the guy supporting a top down socialist state
Quote:Lol his coming for the guy supporting a top down socialist state
A complete non sequitur, my acceptance of the need for socialist institutions and central authority have nothing to do with your inability to accept the reality of your own hypocrisy.
Quote:A complete non sequitur, my acceptance of the need for socialist institutions and central authority have nothing to do with your inability to accept the reality of your own hypocrisy.
My disagreeing with you is not hypocrisy it's me disagreeing with you. Different levels of authority play different roles.