The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: hybrid on July 12, 2013, 08:31:39 PM
-
Mustachians come in all stripes, but are all stripes the same size? How do you typically cast your vote?
-
There's like three overlapping ones I would check.
Can we change the poll to allow one to select more than one option?
-
There's like three overlapping ones I would check.
Can we change the poll to allow one to select more than one option?
That's fine by me, but I did not see that option when I clicked Edit Poll.
-
Wait where's the Organized Anarchist Party?
And aside from the crappy joke I'd also like to select multiple ones.
-
That's fine by me, but I did not see that option when I clicked Edit Poll.
I changed it. Interesting idea, thanks for posting.
-
That's fine by me, but I did not see that option when I clicked Edit Poll.
I changed it. Interesting idea, thanks for posting.
Thanks! And like a lot of other folks from a recent thread, it took me over a month before I "saw" A Rebel Spy..... :)
-
I voted for "fiscally liberal", even though I think that sounds weird. I'm going under the assumption that it means I generally support the spending priorities of Democrats instead of just meaning that I would like us to waste a lot of money.
-
I voted for 3; I think I could have made it 4. I'm just not extreme.
-
I lean libertarian when it comes to "sin items"; personal freedoms, and privacy.
I lean liberal when it comes to economic regulations(sorry, I don't believe in free market jesus), global warming, evolution, and anything where there is a large amount of evidence on one side vs the other.
I believe that we should help the least amongst us, whether it be with conservative hero Milton Friedman's negative income tax, or the general hodgepodge of welfare programs we have.
I believe that taxes are an essential part of building and supporting infrastructure, and it is my duty to pay taxes, as it is everyone's. That said, I don't support our large military-industrial complex(was formerly a part of it too), private prisons(and private prison companies), or our vast intelligence complex.
-
I voted for "fiscally liberal", even though I think that sounds weird. I'm going under the assumption that it means I generally support the spending priorities of Democrats instead of just meaning that I would like us to waste a lot of money.
I think people can interpret it anyway they like, to me it means things like supporting a Keynesian approach to fiscal stimulus vs. austerity, supporting a larger social safety net, resistance to a balanced budget amendment, etc. Conservatives derisively call that "tax and spend", but that knock has lost a lot of its oomph when liberals charge conservatives with "borrow and spend" in return.
How you vote and how your elected leaders have actually performed in office are two different matters. Very few of my conservative friends were satisfied with the Bush years, in spite of the fact that the conservatives controlled all three branches of government. And a lot of liberals are equally unhappy with Obama - Reid - Pelosi for various reasons.
I am officially in the "A pox on both your houses" contingent, but I vote every election.
-
For your enjoyment: Presidential Election Unofficial Poll (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/presidential-election-unofficial-poll/)
I am officially in the "A pox on both your houses" contingent,
The "they're all scumbags" mindset goes back at least three generations in my family. Mistrust of authority, as my dad likes to remind me, is a deeply-held American value.
-
Is this poll for 'Murricans only?
I think it could skew your results quite a lot otherwise. "Conservatives" in many countries to the left of your Democrats on many issues. Libertarian isn't really a thing outside of the USA, I don't think.
-
- Fiscally conservative (which isn't really reflected by current conservatives/Republicans)
- Socially decently liberal
This makes me vote libertarian :)
-
I lean libertarian when it comes to "sin items"; personal freedoms, and privacy.
I lean liberal when it comes to economic regulations(sorry, I don't believe in free market jesus), global warming, evolution, and anything where there is a large amount of evidence on one side vs the other.
I believe that we should help the least amongst us, whether it be with conservative hero Milton Friedman's negative income tax, or the general hodgepodge of welfare programs we have.
I believe that taxes are an essential part of building and supporting infrastructure, and it is my duty to pay taxes, as it is everyone's. That said, I don't support our large military-industrial complex(was formerly a part of it too), private prisons(and private prison companies), or our vast intelligence complex.
Ditto all of this!
-
For your enjoyment: Presidential Election Unofficial Poll (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/presidential-election-unofficial-poll/)
I am officially in the "A pox on both your houses" contingent,
The "they're all scumbags" mindset goes back at least three generations in my family. Mistrust of authority, as my dad likes to remind me, is a deeply-held American value.
Yeah? Cause it sure seems the mindset as of late is "eh, these bread and circuses pretty good."
-
I was wondering this myself actually.
Fiscally conservative in that we shouldn't spend more than we have, but I am happy to spend on infrastructure and some safety net programs.
Socially liberal to the extreme for most people: the government shouldn't be involved except to prevent the religious right from restricting just about everything.
I will vote for the best non-Republican candidate. As an atheist female I don't know why I would voluntarily subject myself to that.
-
the government shouldn't be involved except to prevent the religious right from restricting just about everything.
You're saying that the government should step in and intervene to prevent values that you disagree with from having a chance to gain hold in society? Isn't that what the creationists on the Texas school board believe?
-
the government shouldn't be involved except to prevent the religious right from restricting just about everything.
You're saying that the government should step in and intervene to prevent values that you disagree with from having a chance to gain hold in society? Isn't that what the creationists on the Texas school board believe?
Yeah, except you know, science and all that.
-
I majored in anthropology - this isn't about young earth creationism. Substitute any other social issue, if you'd life - WBC's views on homosexuality, or Gene Ray's Time cube (http://www.timecube.com/), or whether English should be the national language.
This is about whether or not its acceptable for the government to be the arbiter of taste. I found it odd that smalllife bristled that the government would do so for other peoples' preferences, but was effectively asking that the government enforce her preferences. Either you believe the government has a place enforcing taste and beliefs or you don't -- it's intellectually bankrupt to say "the government has no place enforcing things I disagree with, but there's a compelling national interest in the government stepping into private discourse to promote things that I do agree with".
-
Fiscally libertarian
Socially moderate/lean conservative
I vote in every election, but I am appalled at the nature of politics and political discourse. Even some of the things already said in this thread are indicative of how divisive people are these days. And they probably don't even realize they're doing it.
I think that reasonable people can disagree about how to approach political topics. Unfortunately, I also think that reasonable people make up the minority of people who actually pay attention to politics. Or, at best, they're a slight silent majority.
-
Now that I look at the results, I wonder why this blog/board attracts so many social liberals? I know that MMM leans fairly strongly to the left. Rejecting consumerism doesn't seem either left or right to me, and most really frugal people I know are pretty conservative people all around. I do live in a conservative area, but I try not to limit myself to thinking that's the way it is everywhere.
-
Now that I look at the results, I wonder why this blog/board attracts so many social liberals? I know that MMM leans fairly strongly to the left. Rejecting consumerism doesn't seem either left or right to me, and most really frugal people I know are pretty conservative people all around. I do live in a conservative area, but I try not to limit myself to thinking that's the way it is everywhere.
I was surprised by that too, I thought there was a larger socially conservative contingent.
This is about whether or not its acceptable for the government to be the arbiter of taste. found it odd that smalllife bristled that the government would do so for other peoples' preferences, but was effectively asking that the government enforce her preferences. Either you believe the government has a place enforcing taste and beliefs or you don't -- it's intellectually bankrupt to say "the government has no place enforcing things I disagree with, but there's a compelling national interest in the government stepping into private discourse to promote things that I do agree with".
This is a strange definition of "taste" and "private discourse", if you're still talking about the Texas school board. How does wanting to make sure students are presented with scientifically accurate information in science class fall under those headings?
-
Now that I look at the results, I wonder why this blog/board attracts so many social liberals?
Age? Younger people as a group have always been more socially liberal than their parents.
-
Now that I look at the results, I wonder why this blog/board attracts so many social liberals?
Age? Younger people as a group have always been more socially liberal than their parents.
That doesn't explain these numbers though. As of this post there are 57 people who picked one of the two options that have "socially liberal" in it, and there are 3 that picked one of the two options with "socially conservative."
95% to 5% is not solely explained by age demographics.
Partially related, but also not fully explaining it: I think many people view themselves as "socially liberal," due to one or two particular issues, but aren't necessarily so.
-
Now that I look at the results, I wonder why this blog/board attracts so many social liberals? I know that MMM leans fairly strongly to the left. Rejecting consumerism doesn't seem either left or right to me, and most really frugal people I know are pretty conservative people all around. I do live in a conservative area, but I try not to limit myself to thinking that's the way it is everywhere.
Perhaps this is regional. In the places I've lived (different places on the East Coast and Hawaii) "rejecting consumerism" is considered pretty firmly left. I'm thinking of things like biking, thrift stores, gardening, canning, fuel efficient cars, etc. One of my co-workers lectures me that it's my duty as an American to spend as much as I can and support the economy and that his "super-Republican" (his phrase) father taught him that.
But I agree, smart financial planning is for everyone!
-
This is a strange definition of "taste" and "private discourse", if you're still talking about the Texas school board. How does wanting to make sure students are presented with scientifically accurate information in science class fall under those headings?
She didn't say "evolution", she said "practically everything".
-
Now that I look at the results, I wonder why this blog/board attracts so many social liberals? I know that MMM leans fairly strongly to the left. Rejecting consumerism doesn't seem either left or right to me, and most really frugal people I know are pretty conservative people all around. I do live in a conservative area, but I try not to limit myself to thinking that's the way it is everywhere.
Interesting. Rejecting consumerism seems very left to me. There is strong conservative attitude I see of "If I can afford it, I have the right to buy it and nobody is going to tell me I can't or shouldn't". Even when money isn't really involved, they hate being told/suggested what decision to make. See: The attacks on Michelle Obama over her fit kids program.
I'd also say that MMM is very much about logic and looking at the entire picture. Typically, social conservatives don't seem to use logic as the deciding factor. Hard core social conservatives at least. I don't want to suggest that these people are unintelligent, but that these types of choices seem more driven by emotion/religion for them.
-
Now that I look at the results, I wonder why this blog/board attracts so many social liberals? I know that MMM leans fairly strongly to the left. Rejecting consumerism doesn't seem either left or right to me, and most really frugal people I know are pretty conservative people all around. I do live in a conservative area, but I try not to limit myself to thinking that's the way it is everywhere.
Interesting. Rejecting consumerism seems very left to me.
It is... and it isn't. There's often a distrust/dislike of the corporations, but still a big fat desire to consume the products. (I'm generalizing wildly about "the left" and not necessarily those of MMM persuasion that also lean left.
And it seems to generally be a lefty thing on the individual level, but the opposite on the public level. I.e, they tend to reject it for themselves but embrace it for the government. Ironic.
-
And it seems to generally be a lefty thing on the individual level, but the opposite on the public level. I.e, they tend to reject it for themselves but embrace it for the government. Ironic.
I don't get this statement at all, please elaborate.
-
And it seems to generally be a lefty thing on the individual level, but the opposite on the public level. I.e, they tend to reject it for themselves but embrace it for the government. Ironic.
I don't get this statement at all, please elaborate.
An example; instead of paying for let's say private healthcare you would instead be okay with paying taxes for government healthcare.
-
And it seems to generally be a lefty thing on the individual level, but the opposite on the public level. I.e, they tend to reject it for themselves but embrace it for the government. Ironic.
I don't get this statement at all, please elaborate.
An example; instead of paying for let's say private healthcare you would instead be okay with paying taxes for government healthcare.
I don't think it's ironic or hypocritical to be OK with the government spending money on things I wouldn't. I would never buy a new hardcover book, but I'm fine with spending tax money on the public library. I don't live on a large piece of land, but I'm excited to live right next to a walking path that leads to a couple great parks.
-
And it seems to generally be a lefty thing on the individual level, but the opposite on the public level. I.e, they tend to reject it for themselves but embrace it for the government. Ironic.
I don't get this statement at all, please elaborate.
Probably the most mustacian mantra: live within your means. If you're spending more than you're earning, you are on a losing track. Pare back to bare essentials and you'll get ahead. Now, the righties are pretty awful spenders, too. The left has just been doing it longer. (Yeah, I know: military industrial complex.... I'll circle back to that.)
I don't care how lofty the goal or how well intentioned... my own personal opinion here is that government has at least live within it's means. We can bicker and argue over how much tax there is, who gets taxed, what it gets spent on... but jeezus... it has to be within our means and without any "magic math" where reducing the rate of increases is "savings". It's one thing to piss away your own money and put yourself into a hole. It's much worse when you're doing it with someone else's money -- often taken by force and spent on things that they are opposed to.
---
and yes, the righties can be just as bad with their military spending. The only slight (slight) argument here is that military protection could be considered a bare essential. But... you don't have to convince me that we're spending more than the essentials in this category. Yes, it can be totally optimized.
...so maybe I'm being too hard on the lefties... I know the righties are pretty awful in this regard as well.
-
And it seems to generally be a lefty thing on the individual level, but the opposite on the public level. I.e, they tend to reject it for themselves but embrace it for the government. Ironic.
I don't get this statement at all, please elaborate.
An example; instead of paying for let's say private healthcare you would instead be okay with paying taxes for government healthcare.
I don't think it's ironic or hypocritical to be OK with the government spending money on things I wouldn't. I would never buy a new hardcover book, but I'm fine with spending tax money on the public library. I don't live on a large piece of land, but I'm excited to live right next to a walking path that leads to a couple great parks.
Don't get me wrong I'm more than happy to pay taxes for those things as well. I'm just stating that the conservative viewpoint would take it as slightly ironic and showing the example of that irony. Trusting/paying money to the government or trusting/paying money to a private corporation for the same services and viewing them as two different things has a certain element of irony to it
-
And it seems to generally be a lefty thing on the individual level, but the opposite on the public level. I.e, they tend to reject it for themselves but embrace it for the government. Ironic.
I don't get this statement at all, please elaborate.
An example; instead of paying for let's say private healthcare you would instead be okay with paying taxes for government healthcare.
I don't think it's ironic or hypocritical to be OK with the government spending money on things I wouldn't. I would never buy a new hardcover book, but I'm fine with spending tax money on the public library. I don't live on a large piece of land, but I'm excited to live right next to a walking path that leads to a couple great parks.
Don't get me wrong I'm more than happy to pay taxes for those things as well. I'm just stating that the conservative viewpoint would take it as slightly ironic and showing the example of that irony. Trusting/paying money to the government or trusting/paying money to a private corporation for the same services and viewing them as two different things has a certain element of irony to it
I'll bite. They are two different things.
With a private company, you choose which services you want. You decide if the cost is "worth it". You pay with your money and evaluate afterwards if it was a good deal or not.
With government, everyone chooses what services they want, often choosing things you DO NOT WANT. No one really decides if it is worth it, it's generally assumed we can afford it all. You pay with someone else's money and there is really no circle back to determine if it was a good idea. Once the spending starts on any particular thing, it is seriously hard to stop it.
-
And it seems to generally be a lefty thing on the individual level, but the opposite on the public level. I.e, they tend to reject it for themselves but embrace it for the government. Ironic.
I don't get this statement at all, please elaborate.
An example; instead of paying for let's say private healthcare you would instead be okay with paying taxes for government healthcare.
I thought Spork was referring to a distrust of corporations. But I guess it's not really clear.
-
And it seems to generally be a lefty thing on the individual level, but the opposite on the public level. I.e, they tend to reject it for themselves but embrace it for the government. Ironic.
I don't get this statement at all, please elaborate.
An example; instead of paying for let's say private healthcare you would instead be okay with paying taxes for government healthcare.
I thought Spork was referring to a distrust of corporations. But I guess it's not really clear.
Sorry. No, I was referring to overconsumption in general. Maybe that isn't technically "consumerism"... but... it feels the same to me.
-
Ah my mistake, rereading FTW. I'm taking things out of context and derailing the conversation inadvertently. I'll just stick as being a silent viewer for a short time.
-
This poll makes me chuckle a bit about my own voting history in our local state elections.
- the Democrats (whose slogan was "keep the bastards honest") and now longer exist. Go figure.
- the 3 Day Weekend party
- the Abolish State Government party
- the Stable Population party (ok this is a serious one, and has a very mustachian platform)
I think at this election I'll vote for the Sex party, whose policies include better access to contraception, family planning services, and improved sex education for teens.
Of course under the preferential voting system my vote does end up with a mainstream party eventually, so I don't consider any of my choices wasted, just a case of giving my 1st preference to someone other than Labor/Liberal.
However we have nothing on the Brits. I'd dearly love to vote for the Monster Raving Loony party.
-
I do NOT get the "liberals are frugal" idea. C'mon guys.
-
WAIT!
What's this about a sex party now?
-
Sounds almost as awesome as the Pirate Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party).
-
I remember watching a Pirate Party parade/riot/mob/Halloween costume party go by when I was living in Germany. It was awesome.
-
I do NOT get the "liberals are frugal" idea. C'mon guys.
Easy. The party I admire is the frugal one, the party I oppose is consumerist...
-
Interesting. Rejecting consumerism seems very left to me. There is strong conservative attitude I see of "If I can afford it, I have the right to buy it and nobody is going to tell me I can't or shouldn't". Even when money isn't really involved, they hate being told/suggested what decision to make. See: The attacks on Michelle Obama over her fit kids program.
And I find that response interesting in return. My extended family is notoriously frugal, but also quite conservative. We are very down-to-earth (typically Midwestern in that regard) and don't give a damn about having the latest crap that everybody else seems to have.
You are on target though with the "hate being told what decisions to make." But I'm not sure how that relates to frugality.
I'd also say that MMM is very much about logic and looking at the entire picture. Typically, social conservatives don't seem to use logic as the deciding factor. Hard core social conservatives at least. I don't want to suggest that these people are unintelligent, but that these types of choices seem more driven by emotion/religion for them.
I reject that theory almost 100%. It doesn't really seem to jive with any of my experiences in any way.
-
Perhaps this is regional. In the places I've lived (different places on the East Coast and Hawaii) "rejecting consumerism" is considered pretty firmly left. I'm thinking of things like biking, thrift stores, gardening, canning, fuel efficient cars, etc.
In my area, hybrids and electric cars are quite a bit more popular among the left, it seems. But none of those other things you listed are remotely foreign or objectionable in my quite conservative area.
-
You are on target though with the "hate being told what decisions to make." But I'm not sure how that relates to frugality.
Well a lot of MMM posts are about not buying Stuff. I don't think most conservatives actively seek out a website that tells them not to buy stuff. That's a change in behavior and by definition, I would argue, conservatism resists changes in behavior. MMM is leading an alternative lifestyle and I don't think it comes as much of a surprise that those leaning left are more interested.
-
I've never thought that MMM was "telling me not to buy stuff." He is simply sharing his story and leading by example. Sure, he might use insulting words at people like me who drive cars and others who do things he finds clownlike. But I have every right to ignore everything he says if I want.
There's a big difference between encouraging/leading and forcing people to do things. Some people suggest that the Church tells me how to live my life, but again, they simply tell me what they believe is the truth about life. They have no actual authority over me. I can still choose to live whatever moral and ethical life I want to lead.
The only people who can tell me how to live my life is the government. And that's where I have a great deal of caution. Obviously, we want to live in a place where people aren't allowed to murder and injure and steal. But every law beyond those kinds of basic expectations must be considered seriously before it is enacted. I support the idea of limited federal government because laws are created by a small number of people, many of them from areas with different priorities and values, and with no more than three of whom I had the power to help elect.
And for those who support large federal government, what happens if the size of government continues to increases, but then it's taken over by people with a drastically different philosophy from yours? Suddenly, that massive government might not look like what you want anymore...but now you've given them unbelievable amounts of power to affect your lives...
-
And for those who support large federal government, what happens if the size of government continues to increases, but then it's taken over by people with a drastically different philosophy from yours? Suddenly, that massive government might not look like what you want anymore...but now you've given them unbelievable amounts of power to affect your lives...
The federal government will always continue to increase in size. Both major parties support that and they receive ~98% of the vote. Luckily the population the government serves continues to increase as well, so it's not as big of a problem as it seems in the abstract.
-
Now that I look at the results, I wonder why this blog/board attracts so many social liberals? I know that MMM leans fairly strongly to the left. Rejecting consumerism doesn't seem either left or right to me, and most really frugal people I know are pretty conservative people all around. I do live in a conservative area, but I try not to limit myself to thinking that's the way it is everywhere.
I'm not at all surprised by the results thus far, they came down pretty much where I thought they would. Bicycling, conservation, these are things that are going to attract a lot more social liberals than conservatives. And as much as conservatives like to claim liberals are terrible with money, this website is dedicated to people who are much better at managing their money, so the stereotypes ascribed to liberals don't apply. I live in Virginia where it is a lot easier to vote Democrat. The reason being that we have a balanced budget amendment built into the state constitution, and that makes everyone in government much more fiscally conservative by default. In recent years it has been the conservatives who have been guilty of fiscal mismanagement (Gilmore, then McDonnell).
I voted fiscal conservative, social liberal in this poll. That makes my local voting easy, and my national voting a lot harder. The Democrats in Washington have disappointed me mightily (their constant resistance to a balanced budget amendment at the very top of my list of disappointments), and I voted Libertarian in 2012. The national GOP likes to talk a good talk about fiscal moderation, but when the rubber hits the road they vote for farm subsidies, a gynormous military, etc. They had their chance to establish themselves as the fiscally prudent party at the turn of the century, and they went in the exact opposite direction instead. I can't take them seriously when they bitch about the debt during a downturn, they should have been busy paying down the debt when the economy was humming .
-
I am fiscally liberal. I want government spending to decrease in areas that do not improve our quality of life. Conservatives keep jacking up the military complex and spending a trillion in the process. Socially I am liberal as well, as I want a government that stays our of our lives.
-
I also voted fiscal conservative social liberal, but I think I'm rapidly becoming fiscally liberal.
Why? I'm learning more and more about the way our fiat monetary system works, QE, bond insurance, etc. over at the permanent portfolio forum. Fiscal conservatives generally want taxes to equal or surpass spending, but there's not a very big difference between taxes (reducing the amigt of money in peoples hands) and debt issuance (reducing the value of the money in people's hands). The difference seems to be more on the macroeconomic response - government deficit seems to lead to prosperity and surplus seems to lead toward recession. I vote for prosperity.
That doesn't mean I think we should be wasteful or have insanely high total expenditures. Just that I don't care so much about the budget being balanced.
* disclaimer: I'm still struggling to finalize my understanding as I've only recently begun learning about this topic in a meaningful way. Feel free to let me know if I'm misunderstanding.
-
Socially I am liberal as well, as I want a government that stays our of our lives.
That's kind of funny, because socially I lean conservative, as I want a government that stays out of our lives.
I'm sure that if you were to share examples of how your view is valid, I would be able to counter with my own examples of how mine is also valid.
-
Socially I am liberal as well, as I want a government that stays our of our lives.
That's kind of funny, because socially I lean conservative, as I want a government that stays out of our lives.
I'm sure that if you were to share examples of how your view is valid, I would be able to counter with my own examples of how mine is also valid.
I'm sure renbutler was getting at this, but neither position is genuine. Both reek of a "get the government out of my medicare" mentality. I.e. you want the government out of your life, except where you want it in your life. What would the world really look like if the government stayed out of our lives? You may fantasize about and wish for such a world, but I guarantee you've never experienced anything remotely like it.
Unless you really wanted that anarchism checkbox.
-
I am also puzzled by the very unbalanced poll results. If anyone has a good explanation, I am curious.
The difference seems to be more on the macroeconomic response - government deficit seems to lead to prosperity and surplus seems to lead toward recession. I vote for prosperity.
The other longer-term effect, which you can observe in the Eurozone, is that government deficit leads to more instability, because at very high debt burdens, governments become very vulnerable to interest rate changes, and interest rate spikes can cause indebted governments to default. Part of the banking crisis in Europe is because banks suddenly lost a great deal of money when the Greek debt was restructured. Of course, right now the Eurozone is hit by both the austerity programs *and* the debt overhang, which makes for a quite massive recession in the Southern European countries.
So I think government debt has a tradeoff similar to corporate debt: debt financing produces prosperity now, but increases the potential instability later.
-
I am also puzzled by the very unbalanced poll results. If anyone has a good explanation, I am curious.
The difference seems to be more on the macroeconomic response - government deficit seems to lead to prosperity and surplus seems to lead toward recession. I vote for prosperity.
The other longer-term effect, which you can observe in the Eurozone, is that government deficit leads to more instability, because at very high debt burdens, governments become very vulnerable to interest rate changes, and interest rate spikes can cause indebted governments to default. Part of the banking crisis in Europe is because banks suddenly lost a great deal of money when the Greek debt was restructured. Of course, right now the Eurozone is hit by both the austerity programs *and* the debt overhang, which makes for a quite massive recession in the Southern European countries.
So I think government debt has a tradeoff similar to corporate debt: debt financing produces prosperity now, but increases the potential instability later.
The difference is that Greece is a currency user, whereas the US is a currency issuer. Greece could not inflate its way out of debt, as can the US.
-
The difference is that Greece is a currency user, whereas the US is a currency issuer. Greece could not inflate its way out of debt, as can the US.
Yes, but if the US inflates its way out of its debt, this will be economically equivalent to a default: in real terms, its lenders would take a hit. Banks/insurance companies/retirement funds that hold government bonds would struggle.
What may help is that the US has borrowed significant amounts of money abroad, so the shock would be distributed worldwide and the domestic impact on the US may be smaller than the impact on Greece.
-
My theory is that MMM attracts nonconformists, and the posters seem to also skew young. Young nonconformists on an internet forum are unlikely to be socially conservative.
Social conservatives tend to be "traditional" and less questioning of the status quo. (Get married, buy house in the 'burbs, have 2.5 kids, etc.)
I'm sure there are piles of anecdotal "evidence" to disprove this, but it's my theory and I'm sticking to it.
-
Social conservatives tend to be "traditional" and less questioning of the status quo. (Get married, buy house in the 'burbs, have 2.5 kids, etc.)
The party I admire is the frugal one, the party I oppose is consumerist...
Called it.
-
Socially I am liberal as well, as I want a government that stays our of our lives.
That's kind of funny, because socially I lean conservative, as I want a government that stays out of our lives.
One prime exemple is gay marriage. Frankly why would I care and why does the government get to choose who can or can't marry. I understand for child brides since they are not old enough to give a well-informed consent buy why can't a woman marry a woman? I married a damn fine woman so I can totally understand the desire to marry one.
However I want the government to balance the books and minimize taxes so I am definitely a fiscal conservative.
One question is if welfare is a social issue or a fiscal issue. To me, as it is related to money, it is fiscal in nature but some may have a different definition of fiscal vs social.
-
One thing I find interesting in this discussion, re: liberals/conservatives vs. "live within your means" (from Spork et al. above) is that it's very memetically based, rather than fact-based.
That is, who runs up the bigger budget deficits? The right or the left?
Jimmy Carter, with a democratic house and senate, ran absolutely tiny budget deficits compared to Regan. And I don't think you can say malaise-era Jimmy Carter was dealing with a better economy, either. After that example, it seems American governments are very happy spinning the printing presses for whatever their desire to spend is, be they on the left or the right. I really don't see a difference, excluding the Clintonian drop during the boom years before 2000. (which, with a Democratic executive and Republican legislature, both sides probably claim credit for)
Here's a nice breakdown so you can see what I'm talking about : http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html
So, I guess the conclusion is that fiscal conservatives love Jimmy Carter, and that how you cast your vote mostly determines what you want to overspend on.
You'll also note, according to this chart, that the US government has not "lived within its means" since 1957, right around when Eisenhower was warning you about the Military-Industrial-Complex. (and he had a Democratic House and Senate that year, too!) I doubt that's a coincidence. Of course, the top tax bracket was 91%, and that probably helped quite a bit..
-
One prime exemple is gay marriage. [...] I married a damn fine woman so I can totally understand the desire to marry one.
This line made my morning.
-
One prime exemple is gay marriage. [...] I married a damn fine woman so I can totally understand the desire to marry one.
This line made my morning.
Same here :)
-
I'm sure renbutler was getting at this, but neither position is genuine. Both reek of a "get the government out of my medicare" mentality. I.e. you want the government out of your life, except where you want it in your life. What would the world really look like if the government stayed out of our lives? You may fantasize about and wish for such a world, but I guarantee you've never experienced anything remotely like it.
Unless you really wanted that anarchism checkbox.
Keeping the government "out of my life" isn't a literal hope for me. I was simply paralleling the language used by tomsang. It's certainly an oversimplification of what I actually want.
-
Social conservatives tend to be "traditional" and less questioning of the status quo. (Get married, buy house in the 'burbs, have 2.5 kids, etc.)
That's hardly the "status quo" these days, and the evidence is far more than anecdotal.
-
One prime exemple is gay marriage. Frankly why would I care and why does the government get to choose who can or can't marry. I understand for child brides since they are not old enough to give a well-informed consent buy why can't a woman marry a woman? I married a damn fine woman so I can totally understand the desire to marry one.
And that's one area where I actually have a socially libertarian streak. Not only should government stay out of gay marriage, they should stay out of marriage altogether. There should be completely separate laws that allow people to leave their money to whomever they want, share benefits with whomever they want, and allow hospital visitation to whomever they want.
BTW, I am married to a person of the opposite sex, and I couldn't care less whether the government endorses it in any way.
Also, we are acquaintanances with a gay couple who call themselves married (which would not be technically legal here). I don't know if they ever had a ceremony, nor do I care. But, as far as I am concerned, they can enter whatever kind of partnership they want without the government having to know anything about it. This is coming from a fairly conservative Catholic. I just don't care what they do. It's between them and God, and nobody else.
This is actually the view of most conservatives I know. Then again, I don't tend to associate with many evangenical Christians (not by choice, just by happenstance).
-
Social conservatives tend to be "traditional" and less questioning of the status quo. (Get married, buy house in the 'burbs, have 2.5 kids, etc.)
The party I admire is the frugal one, the party I oppose is consumerist...
Called it.
Called what?
-
None of the poll choices were lefty enough for me, but I benefit financially from current conservative Canadian policies, because I'm a big earner. So maybe I should be careful what I wish for! :-)
As far as explaining all these liberal Mustachian respondents, in addition to age we might consider level of education, which in my country at least correlates pretty closely with liberal views and voting. Mustachians are a pretty educated bunch.
On another topic (as I seem to be unable to focus today), I wonder about the effect of ideologizing of shopping in the Bush years. Wasn't it the patriotic duty of Americans to go to the mall, or something? I think there are plenty of lovely frugal conservative people out there, but it seems like their voices don't get heard in the mainstream. Which sucks, because it makes it harder for all of us to find common ground. I mean, based on my tightwaddery, I align with Christian Mom websites.
-
One prime exemple is gay marriage. Frankly why would I care and why does the government get to choose who can or can't marry. I understand for child brides since they are not old enough to give a well-informed consent buy why can't a woman marry a woman? I married a damn fine woman so I can totally understand the desire to marry one.
And that's one area where I actually have a socially libertarian streak. Not only should government stay out of gay marriage, they should stay out of marriage altogether. There should be completely separate laws that allow people to leave their money to whomever they want, share benefits with whomever they want, and allow hospital visitation to whomever they want.
BTW, I am married to a person of the opposite sex, and I couldn't care less whether the government endorses it in any way.
Also, we are acquaintanances with a gay couple who call themselves married (which would not be technically legal here). I don't know if they ever had a ceremony, nor do I care. But, as far as I am concerned, they can enter whatever kind of partnership they want without the government having to know anything about it. This is coming from a fairly conservative Catholic. I just don't care what they do. It's between them and God, and nobody else.
This is actually the view of most conservatives I know. Then again, I don't tend to associate with many evangenical Christians (not by choice, just by happenstance).
Renbutler, after reading a lot of your posts you sound more of a fiscal conservative / social libertarian to me. The social conservatives I know are more than happy to get government involved in things they support, such as state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, getting abortion outlawed, the supposed War on Christmas each year (don't get me started on that one), keeping marijuana illegal, etc. Frankly, you sound a lot more like a Ron Paul supporter than a Michelle Bachmann supporter on social issues. Am I wrong?
-
Renbutler, after reading a lot of your posts you sound more of a fiscal conservative / social libertarian to me. The social conservatives I know are more than happy to get government involved in things they support, such as state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, getting abortion outlawed, the supposed War on Christmas each year (don't get me started on that one), keeping marijuana illegal, etc. Frankly, you sound a lot more like a Ron Paul supporter than a Michelle Bachmann supporter on social issues. Am I wrong?
Well, let me address each of those topics.
Gay marriage. Government should stay out of marriage PERIOD. Straight or gay. I suppose in that regard I am libertarian. My personal views on homosexuality are similar to the Catholic Church's: hate the sin, love the sinner. We have gay friends who consider themselves married (not legally, though). I have no problem with that. If it's a problem as the church says, then God will deal with it. I will still consider them friends, as all my friends sin in one way or another -- as do I. Bottom line though: none of it is the government's business. I certainly don't care that government endorses my marriage. That's meaningless to me.
Abortion. I don't consider this a sex issue. Some like to absurdly accuse pro-lifers of "wanting to control a woman's body." Perhaps there are a few depraved idiots who approach it that way. But for me, and virtually every pro-lifer I know, the issue is about protecting the life of an innocent child. I know that some don't consider a fetus "life." Both sides are well armed with contradictory scientific evidence. I'm not hear to rehash that old debate. I just believe that innocent life should be protected (and I give money to groups who ensure that those "unwanted" children will be taken care of and given a life of dignity). But if the mother's life is in danger, I don't believe her life should be traded for the child's. In this regard, I'm conservative.
War on Christmas. This is such a small issue, IMO, even in conservative circles. I have no problem with companies doing what's best for business by being all-inclusive. I do think it's absurd, however, to try to ban secular images like Christmas trees from public grounds. Some people have no concept of what the first amendment really says. In this regard, I lean conservative, but it's not really a major deal to me.
Marijuana. My view on this is changing a bit. I really think using marijuana is STUPID. There's no redeeming quality to it, and it robs people of energy and ambition. I see it a lot like alcohol: the only reason to use it is if you don't really like yourself when you're not full of mind-altering chemicals. HOWEVER, is there any specific reason to outlaw it? I don't know. On this issue, I'm on the fence.
Death penalty and war (not mentioned above). I take my Church's stance on this one: there is almost never any justification for either of these. Neither should be explicitly banned, but the standards that must be met for them are extremely stringent. In this regard, I suppose I'm liberal (that's difficult to write!).
Regulating behavior (not mentioned above). I wouldn't call regulating behavior "conservative." I hate it when liberal government tries to force people into cars they don't want, or to ban food and beverages that are unhealthful. I support the idea behind improving health and the environment -- I just think it's a horrible idea for the government to legislate it through bans on certain personal behaviors. In this regard, I suppose I am a hybrid of libertarian/conservative.
Bottom line: I will address every issue on its own merits, and my opinions do change over time. I wish more people ON ALL SIDES would open their minds a bit and escape the trappings of extreme ideology and "us versus them" mentality of party politics.
-
Socially I am liberal as well, as I want a government that stays our of our lives.
That's kind of funny, because socially I lean conservative, as I want a government that stays out of our lives.
One prime exemple is gay marriage. Frankly why would I care and why does the government get to choose who can or can't marry. I understand for child brides since they are not old enough to give a well-informed consent buy why can't a woman marry a woman? I married a damn fine woman so I can totally understand the desire to marry one.
However I want the government to balance the books and minimize taxes so I am definitely a fiscal conservative.
As one of the social liberal/ fiscal conservative voters, I agree with this to some extent. For me, I want a government that does it's job economically and stays out of people's personal lives as much as possible, which for me signifies not caring a lot about what people do, whether it's abortion, gay marriage, or whatever else.
I think a lot of mustachians really want the freedom to do whatever they want with their lives and think other people should be afforded that same freedom (so social liberality), but feel like rampant spending, even if the government, may be a bad thing (so fiscal conservatism). Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but I see it as not caring about what people/governments do as long as it doesn't impact your own bottom line.
-
As one of the social liberal/ fiscal conservative voters, I agree with this to some extent. For me, I want a government that does it's job economically and stays out of people's personal lives as much as possible, which for me signifies not caring a lot about what people do, whether it's abortion, gay marriage, or whatever else.
I think a lot of mustachians really want the freedom to do whatever they want with their lives and think other people should be afforded that same freedom (so social liberality), but feel like rampant spending, even if the government, may be a bad thing (so fiscal conservatism). Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but I see it as not caring about what people/governments do as long as it doesn't impact your own bottom line.
The only problem with that is liberal politicians are just as guilty of getting into people's personal lives in the way they ban certain foods and beverages, or try to regulate the way people drive.
I know the argument is that good health and environmental stewardship for the individual are supposed to improve things for everybody, but conservative regulators of behavior try to make the same argument as a justification for THEIR actions.
In other words, no ideology or party has a monopoly on interfering with personal freedom.
-
The only problem with that is liberal politicians are just as guilty of getting into people's personal lives in the way they ban certain foods and beverages, or try to regulate the way people drive.
I know the argument is that good health and environmental stewardship for the individual are supposed to improve things for everybody, but conservative regulators of behavior try to make the same argument as a justification for THEIR actions.
In other words, no ideology or party has a monopoly on interfering with personal freedom.
I'd agree with that and I'd also be opposed to the measures that intervene in people's personal lives. I guess I lean more socially libertarian than liberal, per se, but that's not really a thing (or is it?), though I'd be for some government intervention if a group's rights are being restricted by the majority, which typically ends up making me seem more liberal. I typically will pay more attention to a candidate's economic policies than social, unless they support something I completely disagree with.
-
Moderator Note: Moved thread to Off Topic.
It got enough exposure in the Welcome & General Discussion for the last 4 days for the poll to run properly (176 votes so far), and the political stuff mostly belongs in OT.
Cheers.
-
Regulating behavior (not mentioned above). I wouldn't call regulating behavior "conservative." I hate it when liberal government tries to force people into cars they don't want, or to ban food and beverages that are unhealthful. I support the idea behind improving health and the environment -- I just think it's a horrible idea for the government to legislate it through bans on certain personal behaviors. In this regard, I suppose I am a hybrid of libertarian/conservative.
Bottom line: I will address every issue on its own merits, and my opinions do change over time. I wish more people ON ALL SIDES would open their minds a bit and escape the trappings of extreme ideology and "us versus them" mentality of party politics.
Nicely written. I suspect what you consider to be conservative I consider to be libertarian. I know lots and lots of conservatives that pine on about FREEDOM (their caps) while simultaneously trying to restrict the freedoms of others. While you may consider marijuana to be a poor choice, I think you and I might find common ground in making marijuana illegal a poorer choice, as the net effect has been to create a prohibition environment. Outlawing marijuana fills our overflowing prisons needlessly and fosters organized crime. And people are going to continue to smoke it whether you or I approve or not. Better to legalize and tax the hell out of it as far as I am concerned. As a market-oriented guy who probably isn't looking to outlaw alcohol, I think you can see my point here.
In regards to abortion, the day you can readily buy life insurance for an eight week fetus and the same funeral is readily given for an eight week miscarriage as a stillborn child, then I'll get on board with the premise that society treats the preborn as equivalent to those in the world already. For thousands of years society has separated the potential for children from those that are born into the world. And as a modern example, there are fewer Downs kids these days because potential parents who learn of the condition early in the pregnancy are unwilling to deliver. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's a decision that I feel is strictly one for the parents alone and nobody else.
-
Is this poll for 'Murricans only?
I think it could skew your results quite a lot otherwise. "Conservatives" in many countries to the left of your Democrats on many issues. Libertarian isn't really a thing outside of the USA, I don't think.
Libertarian isn't much of a thing inside the USA either, just a way for folks to vote Democrat without pulling the lever for a Democrat. ; > )
-
Libertarian isn't much of a thing inside the USA either, just a way for folks to vote Democrat without pulling the lever for a Democrat. ; > )
It's so sad, it makes me laugh.
I fully disagree.
-
Is this poll for 'Murricans only?
I think it could skew your results quite a lot otherwise. "Conservatives" in many countries to the left of your Democrats on many issues. Libertarian isn't really a thing outside of the USA, I don't think.
Libertarian isn't much of a thing inside the USA either, just a way for folks to vote Democrat without pulling the lever for a Democrat. ; > )
Funny, I'd always heard Libertarians described as just Republicans who like to smoke weed.
-
Marijuana. My view on this is changing a bit. I really think using marijuana is STUPID. There's no redeeming quality to it, and it robs people of energy and ambition. I see it a lot like alcohol: the only reason to use it is if you don't really like yourself when you're not full of mind-altering chemicals. HOWEVER, is there any specific reason to outlaw it? I don't know. On this issue, I'm on the fence.
I hate seeing these tired stereotypes. All people in all walks of life use marijuana. From the factory worker and fast food cook to the lawyer, doctor, and accountant. It doesn't rob you of energy or ambition. That's just nonsense and sounds like it's straight out of Reefer Madness. You know what I like to do when stoned? I like to hike. A nice 8-10 mile hike is about the best thing going. Does that sound like marijuana is robbing my energy?
And the fact that you think something has to be wrong with someone to use it is practically laughable. People have been enjoying marijuana for thousands of years. It's FUN! I like myself sober and I like myself stoned and I like myself when drinking. Imagine that!
As far as it having no redeeming qualities, well I'm sure you've heard of medical marijuana. Marijuana can be used for dozens of medical conditions without the costs or side affects associated with Big Pharma. In fact, it's something of a miracle drug. Even if you are lucky enough to not have to rely on marijuana as medicine, self medicating with it can help you relax, de-stress, and generally improve your mood almost immediately.
Lastly, it's almost completely harmless for adults. You can't overdose. It's not physically addictive. And you can even vaporize it or cook with it to completely eliminate the small risk of inhaling a tiny amount of smoke.
-
Marijuana. My view on this is changing a bit. I really think using marijuana is STUPID. There's no redeeming quality to it, and it robs people of energy and ambition. I see it a lot like alcohol: the only reason to use it is if you don't really like yourself when you're not full of mind-altering chemicals. HOWEVER, is there any specific reason to outlaw it? I don't know. On this issue, I'm on the fence.
I hate seeing these tired stereotypes. All people in all walks of life use marijuana. From the factory worker and fast food cook to the lawyer, doctor, and accountant. It doesn't rob you of energy or ambition. That's just nonsense and sounds like it's straight out of Reefer Madness. You know what I like to do when stoned? I like to hike. A nice 8-10 mile hike is about the best thing going. Does that sound like marijuana is robbing my energy?
It's only a stereotype because there is some amount of truth to it. I've certainly known folks that walked off the deep end and did nothing but toke all day every day until they became a street urchin. Sound hyperbolic? It is... and yet: I've known that guy. The same can be said of alcohol or internet porn or any number of other things. It is not the norm, but it does happen.
But: that said -- I could give a rat's ass if it was legal and if it was, I might use it on occasion. As it is not: I don't just because the risk/reward isn't there for me.
caveat: I'm an upper 40-something that's been around a while. I'm not someone that's never tried the stuff.... though it's been 25+ years since I've used it.
-
Funny, I'd always heard Libertarians described as just Republicans who like to smoke weed.
Ha, that's good.
I hate the two-party system, but the Republicans tend to represent my overall views better than Democrats. That said, I have voted for a handful of Libertarians. It would be a lot easier to do so a.) if they had a real chance to win around here (they don't) and b.) if Libertarians would stick to basic economic issues (I really don't want to legalize prostitution).
Not that Republicans (nor Democrats) stick mainly to economics either, sadly. And I really hate the team mentality (us versus them) of party politics. I am NOT a Republican, even when I vote for them most of the time.
BTW, I don't smoke weed either. I do get the feeling that most college kids supported Ron Paul for that single issue. LOL
-
Marijuana. My view on this is changing a bit. I really think using marijuana is STUPID. There's no redeeming quality to it, and it robs people of energy and ambition. I see it a lot like alcohol: the only reason to use it is if you don't really like yourself when you're not full of mind-altering chemicals. HOWEVER, is there any specific reason to outlaw it? I don't know. On this issue, I'm on the fence.
I hate seeing these tired stereotypes. All people in all walks of life use marijuana. From the factory worker and fast food cook to the lawyer, doctor, and accountant. It doesn't rob you of energy or ambition. That's just nonsense and sounds like it's straight out of Reefer Madness. You know what I like to do when stoned? I like to hike. A nice 8-10 mile hike is about the best thing going. Does that sound like marijuana is robbing my energy?
It's only a stereotype because there is some amount of truth to it. I've certainly known folks that walked off the deep end and did nothing but toke all day every day until they became a street urchin. Sound hyperbolic? It is... and yet: I've known that guy. The same can be said of alcohol or internet porn or any number of other things. It is not the norm, but it does happen.
But: that said -- I could give a rat's ass if it was legal and if it was, I might use it on occasion. As it is not: I don't just because the risk/reward isn't there for me.
caveat: I'm an upper 40-something that's been around a while. I'm not someone that's never tried the stuff.... though it's been 25+ years since I've used it.
I actually think it's a selection bias problem. I know more stoner lawyers, by far, than any other profession. Yet I doubt there's a correlation between smoking marijuana and passing the bar. Lazy people will be lazy with or without marijuana.
-
It's only a stereotype because there is some amount of truth to it. I've certainly known folks that walked off the deep end and did nothing but toke all day every day until they became a street urchin. Sound hyperbolic? It is... and yet: I've known that guy. The same can be said of alcohol or internet porn or any number of other things. It is not the norm, but it does happen.
I've also known those guys (and gals). It doesn't mean that every person is significantly affected by it in a negative way. I just don't see it benefiting people either. Same way with alcohol, which I also choose not to consume. And I'm not really talking about the "glass of wine with dinner" crowd. Maybe the people who can use alcohol responsibly are similar to people who can smoke dope responsibly, and the rest give them a bad name.
Why is alcohol legal and marijuana isn't? I don't know. It does seem inconsistent. But I'm not ready to say we need to legalize pot just to be consistent.
-
It's only a stereotype because there is some amount of truth to it. I've certainly known folks that walked off the deep end and did nothing but toke all day every day until they became a street urchin. Sound hyperbolic? It is... and yet: I've known that guy. The same can be said of alcohol or internet porn or any number of other things. It is not the norm, but it does happen.
I've also known those guys (and gals). It doesn't mean that every person is significantly affected by it in a negative way. I just don't see it benefiting people either. Same way with alcohol, which I also choose not to consume. And I'm not really talking about the "glass of wine with dinner" crowd. Maybe the people who can use alcohol responsibly are similar to people who can smoke dope responsibly, and the rest give them a bad name.
Why is alcohol legal and marijuana isn't? I don't know. It does seem inconsistent. But I'm not ready to say we need to legalize pot just to be consistent.
The overall generalization here is "why the hell does the government care?" Adults should be able to sort out the risks they're willing to take and accept the rewards/downfalls that become them.
There is a creeping nanny-statism that wants to protect us from ourselves. Outlawing heroin begets outlawing pot, which begets outlawing fatty foods/sugary drinks, etc.
Generally to protect liberty, you have to take a stance on things you don't particularly care for. If you want to protect free speech, you have to protect the idiot KKK's ability to speak freely. If you want to protect freedom of the press, you have to protect Larry Flint's ability to publish porn.
The answer given is normally "violent crime", "DUI", etc. Okay, fine: enforce laws violated with violent crime. Enforce DUI.
-
I suppose I prefer a smaller government, but I honestly think big and small work fine. Pay more taxes for more government services or pay less in taxes and pay more for services on our own, I don't really care. We just need to pick which damn road we are going to travel. This pay less in taxes but magically still get everything policy isn't working out to well.
-
I've also known those guys (and gals). It doesn't mean that every person is significantly affected by it in a negative way. I just don't see it benefiting people either. Same way with alcohol, which I also choose not to consume. And I'm not really talking about the "glass of wine with dinner" crowd. Maybe the people who can use alcohol responsibly are similar to people who can smoke dope responsibly, and the rest give them a bad name.
Why is alcohol legal and marijuana isn't? I don't know. It does seem inconsistent. But I'm not ready to say we need to legalize pot just to be consistent.
I'll be the one to say that I believe marijuana has benefitted me. I don't think it's some miracle drug that solves all of society's ills, but I think I can say with some confidence that it's been good for me. I feel like it's given me a different perspective on things, helped me make new friends, and have a wider set of life experiences. That all makes me a better person even when I'm sober.
renbutler, you say you're not ready to legalize it just to be consistent, but doesn't logic dictate that it should be legal? It's verifiably less harmful than alcohol. Alcohol is legal (with restrictions). Therefore, pot should be legal also. Why should the government be deciding what "unhealthy" substances are OK for adults to put into their own bodies?
You've said you lean conservative and want the government out of our lives. But what if I want my life to partly consist of getting baked everyday? So what if I "really don't like myself"?
-
I suppose I'm a socialist libertarian socially liberal burkean conservative... or something. Oy. Maybe I'm just Starswirl, and don't fit into a box very well. In any case, reading this thread, I find myself finding something to agree with in everyone's viewpoints.
Socialist: Someone once said that the great tragedy of the 20th century is that everything the Communists said about themselves was a lie, but everything they said about Capitalism was true. My ideal society is something like the Mondragon Model on the economic plane: worker-owned and democratically run co-operatives competing within a free market. Why are liberty and democracy good for our governments but not our workplaces?
Libertarian: The role of government is to preserve the commons-- clean air, clean water, safe public spaces, etc. After that people should be free to make whatever mistakes they wish*, which brings me to the social sphere, I guess.
*that's for individuals, though. Corporate person-hood is a crock and the business sector, especially if it's for-profit and not following my favourite model, needs to be regulated out the arse to avoid becoming predatory. Trust busting is a necessary task of preserving the commons of an open market: too big to fail is to big to exist.
Conservative: I believe that old, time-honoured values must have survived for a reason, in the Darwinian world of memes, and tend to support them. The wisdom of our forefathers is that monogamy is good and usury is bad, to pick two examples. So therefore, I'll stay monogamous and "neither a borrower nor lender be" but if others do choose otherwise? It's not my problem. Am I my brother's keeper? Actually, my brother is in some kind of wacky bisexual open group marriage thing that Robert A. Heinlen would have just loved, and I'm happy for him as long as it works, though I really think it's going to explode spectacularly in his face one of these days. If that sounds more liberal than conservative, I suppose it's because of how dogmatic and authoritarian modern conservatives are. Burkean conservatism is something different, and actually about conserving things: don't mess with success, don't change what works. Really, my social philosophy stems from expanding the very useful (and time-honoured) ideal of freedom of religion into other aspects of the social sphere. You can go to your church on Sunday and pretend to be cannibals, and I'll worship Solarix Invicta and Luna Somniantis every sunset and we can all go to hell in our own ways. There are no right answers, and trying to enforce any one social viewpoint at this point would be radical change, which Burkean conservatism abhors.
I suppose I prefer a smaller government, but I honestly think big and small work fine. Pay more taxes for more government services or pay less in taxes and pay more for services on our own, I don't really care. We just need to pick which damn road we are going to travel. This pay less in taxes but magically still get everything policy isn't working out to well.
Eeyup. No argument here.
-
I'll be the one to say that I believe marijuana has benefitted me. I don't think it's some miracle drug that solves all of society's ills, but I think I can say with some confidence that it's been good for me. I feel like it's given me a different perspective on things, helped me make new friends, and have a wider set of life experiences. That all makes me a better person even when I'm sober.
renbutler, you say you're not ready to legalize it just to be consistent, but doesn't logic dictate that it should be legal? It's verifiably less harmful than alcohol. Alcohol is legal (with restrictions). Therefore, pot should be legal also. Why should the government be deciding what "unhealthy" substances are OK for adults to put into their own bodies?
You've said you lean conservative and want the government out of our lives. But what if I want my life to partly consist of getting baked everyday? So what if I "really don't like myself"?
I said I'm on the fence. If you oversimplify the issue, of course it sounds like an easy choice. But it's still an oversimplification.
Anyway, I don't really buy the "given me a different perspective," "helped me make new friends," and "have a wider set of experiences" argument. There are literally thousands of different ways to accomplish those things without inhaling chemicals.
I'm not going to say definitively that there can never be anything good about smoking dope. But I'm going to say your justification wasn't very convincing at all.
-
It's verifiably less harmful than alcohol. Alcohol is legal (with restrictions). Therefore, pot should be legal also.
Pot prevents heart disease? Increases HDL? Decreases diabetes risk? Protects against stones in the urinary tract? Increases bone density? Fascinating.
Why should the government be deciding what "unhealthy" substances are OK for adults to put into their own bodies?
Does the phrase "negative externalities" mean anything to you? There's your answer.
-
It's verifiably less harmful than alcohol. Alcohol is legal (with restrictions). Therefore, pot should be legal also.
Pot prevents heart disease? Increases HDL? Decreases diabetes risk? Protects against stones in the urinary tract? Increases bone density? Fascinating.
Huh? Just because moderate alcohol consumption has some benefits, marijuana cannot be less harmful or more beneficial because it works different than alcohol? You're usually more rational than that grantmeaname.
-
Why should the government be deciding what "unhealthy" substances are OK for adults to put into their own bodies?
Does the phrase "negative externalities" mean anything to you? There's your answer.
Which, ironically, is exactly the reason marijuana should be legal. We spend billions on prisons and police and directly contribute to the vast amounts of power held by drug cartels and gangs. All for what? To appease the alcohol and pharmacological lobbyists? Recreational use is now legal in two states. It's been quasi-legal in California for decades. For the first time, greater than 50% of people (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/04/17603170-survey-52-percent-of-americans-in-favor-of-legalizing-marijuana?lite)think it should be legal and view it as no big deal. And the science backs that claim up.
-
It's verifiably less harmful than alcohol. Alcohol is legal (with restrictions). Therefore, pot should be legal also.
Pot prevents heart disease? Increases HDL? Decreases diabetes risk? Protects against stones in the urinary tract? Increases bone density? Fascinating.
Of course, none of those reasons are why alcohol is legal.
-
Is this poll for 'Murricans only?
I think it could skew your results quite a lot otherwise. "Conservatives" in many countries to the left of your Democrats on many issues. Libertarian isn't really a thing outside of the USA, I don't think.
Libertarian isn't much of a thing inside the USA either, just a way for folks to vote Democrat without pulling the lever for a Democrat. ; > )
Funny, I'd always heard Libertarians described as just Republicans who like to smoke weed.
Exactly, folks who otherwise would vote Republican vote for the incredibly long shot Libertarian candidate instead. Democrats love that.
I think marijuana should be legal also. Way too much time and effort wasted on trying to ban it, kinda like prohibition...
-
Huh? Just because moderate alcohol consumption has some benefits, marijuana cannot be less harmful or more beneficial because it works different than alcohol? You're usually more rational than that grantmeaname.
I'm just saying it's not "verifiably less harmful", it's only "less harmful in thefinancialstudent's opinion", which is typically not the basis for legislation.
Which, ironically, is exactly the reason marijuana should be legal. We spend billions on prisons and police and directly contribute to the vast amounts of power held by drug cartels and gangs. All for what? To appease the alcohol and pharmacological lobbyists?
I don't see how dramatically increasing the size of the market would do much harm to Mexican drug cartels.
Recreational use is now legal in two states.
O Rly? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause)
And the science backs that claim up.
Bullshit. "Science" has no opinions on the legalization of pot. If you want "the science" to support your argument, cite it.
-
Which, ironically, is exactly the reason marijuana should be legal. We spend billions on prisons and police and directly contribute to the vast amounts of power held by drug cartels and gangs. All for what? To appease the alcohol and pharmacological lobbyists?
I don't see how dramatically increasing the size of the market would do much harm to Mexican drug cartels.
If we're relating this to alcohol, that's exactly what happened. When alcohol was illegal, there was an organized crime cartel that ran it. The reason: there was demand enough that drove the price high enough that the risk was worth the outcome. Once alcohol became legal, that portion of organized crime shrank.
We also have an ungodly number of drug offenders in prisons. This has got to cost something, right? In addition to the cost of supporting them in prison, I'm pretty sure our prison system doesn't "reform" them -- it teaches them to be criminals. They go in dumb kids that made stupid choices and come out badass gangbangers. It's sort of a Lord of the Flies society in there.
-
Which, ironically, is exactly the reason marijuana should be legal. We spend billions on prisons and police and directly contribute to the vast amounts of power held by drug cartels and gangs. All for what? To appease the alcohol and pharmacological lobbyists?
I don't see how dramatically increasing the size of the market would do much harm to Mexican drug cartels.
I've never been more disappointed in you grant. You don't think that prohibition strengthened organized crime in the US? Or that repealing prohibition weakened it? Do you care to explain what about marijuana and Mexican drug cartels is different enough to cause the exact opposite effect. Do you think that there are people out there now that want to smoke weed but can't or won't because its illegal, but then once it becomes legal will seek out drug dealers to buy there weed from? Otherwise I'm not even sure what you even mean by increasing the size of the market.
Do you think that eliminating their monopoly and offering a safer legal alternative to them will strengthen Mexican Drug cartels?
-
Which, ironically, is exactly the reason marijuana should be legal. We spend billions on prisons and police and directly contribute to the vast amounts of power held by drug cartels and gangs. All for what? To appease the alcohol and pharmacological lobbyists?
I don't see how dramatically increasing the size of the market would do much harm to Mexican drug cartels.
How would legalizing it dramatically increase the size of the market? All it would do is move the market out of the shadows and into legitimacy. It's not like there are people lined up who want to smoke but can't find any. Marijuana is EVERYWHERE!
But supply would be radically different. Supply would be local, fresh, and of higher quality than anything that would be shipped 2000 miles. In essence, is would take the vast majority of the supply away from cartels and put it into the hands of local growers. The only thing that stops anyone from growing is the risk of harsh "dealer" penalties, including seizure of property. Take that away, and no one would buy that Mexican ditch weed ever again.
But don't take my word for it. Here's former Mexican President Vicente Fox saying the same thing:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/30/us/washington-marijuana-fox
Who knows more about it than a man who's job it was to fight it for four years?
-
How would legalizing it dramatically increase the size of the market? All it would do is move the market out of the shadows and into legitimacy. It's not like there are people lined up who want to smoke but can't find any. Marijuana is EVERYWHERE!
Well, to be fair, it would probably increase the market somewhat. I don't use it because the risk/reward isn't there. I don't want to face prosecution. I don't want to face possibly being fired for "illegal drug use." I don't want to use a product sold by a thug on the street. I don't want to grow it as I don't want my property seized without due process.
...but if I could buy legal, clean products from RJ Reynolds or if my green thumb wife could grow it in the garden, I might consider occasional use. Even then... maybe not.
-
Well, to be fair, it would probably increase the market somewhat. I don't use it because the risk/reward isn't there. I don't want to face prosecution. I don't want to face possibly being fired for "illegal drug use." I don't want to use a product sold by a thug on the street. I don't want to grow it as I don't want my property seized without due process.
...but if I could buy legal, clean products from RJ Reynolds or if my green thumb wife could grow it in the garden, I might consider occasional use. Even then... maybe not.
Avoiding illegal drug dealers (which there would be even if marijuana was legalized and "thugs on the street" would not really put you in the market for marijuana from Mexican Drug cartels would it?
-
Well, to be fair, it would probably increase the market somewhat. I don't use it because the risk/reward isn't there. I don't want to face prosecution. I don't want to face possibly being fired for "illegal drug use." I don't want to use a product sold by a thug on the street. I don't want to grow it as I don't want my property seized without due process.
...but if I could buy legal, clean products from RJ Reynolds or if my green thumb wife could grow it in the garden, I might consider occasional use. Even then... maybe not.
Avoiding illegal drug dealers (which there would be even if marijuana was legalized and "thugs on the street" would not really put you in the market for marijuana from Mexican Drug cartels would it?
The way I read Grant's reply (maybe incorrect, but how I read it) was "making it legal will increase the market". I am pretty sure that would make Mexican cartels find something else to do or someone else to sell to. But the market for marijuana would still probably increase, regardless of the supplier.
-
I'm with you that the market would increase somewhat, but it seems we are reading grantmeaname's post differently.
He says that he doesn't see how "dramatically increasing the size of the market" for weed "would do much to harm" drug cartels, but it seems that you, eric and myself are all in agreement that other aspects of legalizing marijuana would in fact harm mexican drug cartels.
-
If you look at the facts, it's nonsensical to argue that marijuana should be banned while something much more dangerous (like alcohol, or nicotine) is permitted:
- It's less addictive than caffeine (http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm (http://www.tfy.drugsense.org/tfy/addictvn.htm))
- When used AFTER the age of 18, no neurological decline is noted (http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/health/persistent-cannabis-users-neuropsychological-decline/ (http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/health/persistent-cannabis-users-neuropsychological-decline/))
- Long term use has no neurological effects (http://health.ucsd.edu/news/2003/06_27_grant.html (http://health.ucsd.edu/news/2003/06_27_grant.html))
- Users have lower rates of obesity (aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/08/24/aje.kwr200.abstract (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/08/24/aje.kwr200.abstract))
- Users have no increased risk of heart disease (jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104848 (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104848))
I've never smoked pot. I have no inclination to do so. Making pot legal is a no-brainer though. A more interesting question would be . . . How many of you who think the government shouldn't be regulating stuff would be OK with legalized cocaine and heroin?
-
I've never smoked pot. I have no inclination to do so.
Ditto. (Only mentioning as it's potentially relevant to my answer below.)
How many of you who think the government shouldn't be regulating stuff would be OK with legalized cocaine and heroin?
I would.
-
I've never smoked pot. I have no inclination to do so. Making pot legal is a no-brainer though. A more interesting question would be . . . How many of you who think the government shouldn't be regulating stuff would be OK with legalized cocaine and heroin?
I would. But I am an outler. I'd pretty much legalize almost anything between consenting adults (or "just yourself" in the drug context.) It doesn't mean I'd actually do cocaine/heroin if they were legal.
-
I've never smoked pot. I have no inclination to do so.
Ditto. (Only mentioning as it's potentially relevant to my answer below.)
How many of you who think the government shouldn't be regulating stuff would be OK with legalized cocaine and heroin?
I would.
Double ditto.
re: Legalization,
I've always felt that a law that a significant number of people regularly break is a stupid law. It lowers the overall respect the society has for its laws, police, and entire judicial structure. That sort of thing is corrosive, and very worrysome to me. Even more worrysome is that the anti-drug war camp is probably right that the laws are being enforced selectively -- look at drug use amongst racial populations in the US, vs. the racial populations in American prisons. I don't know if it's as bad as they say, but there's obviously something fishy going on. Which is eroding my overall respect for the law, police, and entire judicial structure.
Another point to bring up a British study, published in the Lancet (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607604644/fulltext), which looked at common intoxicants from a medical and social perspective, put the legal drugs rather in the middle of the pack. MMDA, commonly known as molly (and a key component of ecstasy)* topped the list of most innocuous drugs; LSD and pot both scored as "better" than alcohol. A report (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_classification:_making_a_hash_of_it%3F) commissioned by the UK parliament declared khat and alcyl nitrates safer than MMDA, and put tobacco in the middle of the pack and alcohol in the rear between ketamine (better) and benzos (worse). The general consensus amongst medical professionals and neuroscientists is that our current drug policy in no way reflects the reality of
*you'll still see references to ecstasy/E as MMDA, but neuroscientist I know who studies these things in his spare time (cough.) tells me that the street names have shifted, and E is now commonly blended with cheaper (meth)amphetamines.
Furthermore, you don't have to go all the way with legalization. Maybe it's different in the US, what with your liquor stores in every corner, but here in Ontario the sale of liquor is a government monopoly, held through the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO). The LCBO controls liquor consumption through high prices and inconvenient hours. If the government here wanted to cut down on the availability of pot, or any illegal drug, they'd legalize it and sell it at the LCBO. Having had the dubious pleasure of living next to a dealer ("Cocaine's on sale! 40$/g!" ... good morning to you, too, sir.) and having tried to get wine on a Sunday, I can assure you that that is not hyperbole.
-
Furthermore, you don't have to go all the way with legalization. Maybe it's different in the US, what with your liquor stores in every corner, but here in Ontario the sale of liquor is a government monopoly, held through the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO). The LCBO controls liquor consumption through high prices and inconvenient hours. If the government here wanted to cut down on the availability of pot, or any illegal drug, they'd legalize it and sell it at the LCBO. Having had the dubious pleasure of living next to a dealer ("Cocaine's on sale! 40$/g!" ... good morning to you, too, sir.) and having tried to get wine on a Sunday, I can assure you that that is not hyperbole.
In the US, it varies so wildly that there isn't any generalization that applies. It varies by state. It varies by county. It varies by city. And, yes, it varies by voting precinct. Our liquor laws are convoluted, confusing and contradictory. We also still have "dry counties" where liquor is, effectively, still outlawed and "damp counties" where beer/wine are legal but liquor is not. We have areas where it's illegal to buy it to take home and drink, but legal to drink in a bar (and drive home).
That was totally off topic... but... I'm sure it clears things up for you. ;)
-
How many of you who think the government shouldn't be regulating stuff would be OK with legalized cocaine and heroin?
I would. I just don't think the government has a right to tell someone what they can or cannot put into their bodies willingly. Plus we treat addicts as criminals, which then turns them into social outcasts upon their release so they can't get a job and the health system isn't there to actually treat the problem. Then they quickly turn back to drugs because it's the only (temporary) escape from misery and a way to earn cash if they deal.
-
---
and yes, the righties can be just as bad with their military spending. The only slight (slight) argument here is that military protection could be considered a bare essential. But... you don't have to convince me that we're spending more than the essentials in this category. Yes, it can be totally optimized.
...so maybe I'm being too hard on the lefties... I know the righties are pretty awful in this regard as well.
In my 15 years of working for various contractors, it is my experience that the problem is that the government 1) can't figure out what they want to buy before they attempt to buy it (causing lots of expensive rework as they decide they don't like what they actually bought) or 2) give lip service to the Pareto Principle to lower costs, yet refuse to negotiate on the most expensive requirements.
-
I've always felt that a law that a significant number of people regularly break is a stupid law.
I'm not challenging, but wondering:
Is there a reliable study about how many US citizens currently smoke pot?
I'm sure some of you know many pot smokers, so you might overestimate it. I personally don't hang out with them (as far as I know), so I might underestimate it.
-
BTW, I have been around people who are high, and if I were an employer, I certainly wouldn't want them showing up to my place of business like that.
Not because of WHAT THEY DID, but how they were actually behaving in that state. It didn't seem conducive to concentration or productivity in any way.
I'm not making a larger point about legalization or criminalizing. Just something to consider.
-
BTW, I have been around people who are high, and if I were an employer, I certainly wouldn't want them showing up to my place of business like that.
Not because of WHAT THEY DID, but how they were actually behaving in that state. It didn't seem conducive to concentration or productivity in any way.
I'm not making a larger point about legalization or criminalizing. Just something to consider.
Sure. You can't show up to work drunk, either.
I've always felt that a law that a significant number of people regularly break is a stupid law.
I'm not challenging, but wondering:
Is there a reliable study about how many US citizens currently smoke pot?
I'm sure some of you know many pot smokers, so you might overestimate it. I personally don't hang out with them (as far as I know), so I might underestimate it.
According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (as reported on Wikipedia), 13.7% of Americans report having used cannabis within the past year (in 2009). In Canada, it's 12.6%. In the Netherlands, where it's legal, the same agency reported a 5.4% annual prevalence in 2005.
What would really interest me would be the historical data-- how much pot did the Dutch smoke before legalization, and how much after? I really don't think legalization could make it any more available, at least in my community. While it might remove some stigma that might lead to experimentation from more respectable folk, legalization might also dampen the lure of rebellion that might be pulling in so many more North Americans.
I should note that, historically, Prohibition in the USA actually increased alcohol consumption, and seemed to cause a shift towards greater consumption of hard spirits vs. beer and cider. (Since many venerable orchards were felled in this period, cider consumption never really recovered.)
I'm with you, Ren, in that I don't think people should be smoking pot, or anything, really. I think it's a bad idea and a social evil. I just don't think the current system of prohibition is actually doing much to stop them. Really, have you ever even heard of a person who'd say "I could really go for a joint right now, if only it were legal"? I also worry that the system of prohibition has lead to greater social evils, and that people should be allowed to make their own mistakes.
-
I'm with you, Ren, in that I don't think people should be smoking pot, or anything, really. I think it's a bad idea and a social evil. I just don't think the current system of prohibition is actually doing much to stop them. Really, have you ever even heard of a person who'd say "I could really go for a joint right now, if only it were legal"? I also worry that the system of prohibition has lead to greater social evils, and that people should be allowed to make their own mistakes.
To preface, I believe marijuana should be legalized.
However, I also think that there will be a small to moderate increase in the usage of marijuana if it were legalized. There is a moderately large group of professionals who cannot smoke due to drug testing, and there are certainly a group of people who might try it (and find that they enjoy it), but don't want to risk breaking the law -- especially in states that treat marijuana harshly.
On top of this, there is a lot of propaganda about how dangerous marijuana is. On the other hand, there are many, many people who use alcohol irresponsibly but don't smoke marijuana. Over time, the ideas surrounding marijuana's danger will fade into the past and more people will look at it as an acceptable recreational drug.
BTW, I have been around people who are high, and if I were an employer, I certainly wouldn't want them showing up to my place of business like that.
I agree that this will be an issue because it is difficult to prove that someone is high at any given moment without a high level of expertise. There is no breathalyzer for marijuana. It will still be just as much against company policy as showing up to work drunk. This is also an issue with driving.
-
I agree that this will be an issue because it is difficult to prove that someone is high at any given moment without a high level of expertise. There is no breathalyzer for marijuana. It will still be just as much against company policy as showing up to work drunk. This is also an issue with driving.
There is apparently a saliva test in trials that will tell you if someone has consumed cannabis in the last couple of hours, but it isn't yet sensitive enough to detect impairment. So there's no way to come up with a legal limit like we have with blood-alcohol-level... but a legal time limit based on some conservative assumptions of how long it takes to get out of a persons system and some equivalent of a sobriety test might work.
"Son, I need you to look at your hands."
"...whoa."
"Book him."
Of course, if we didn't all regularly operate two-ton death machines just go a couple blocks, it wouldn't be a big deal.
-
Well this thread has certainly jumped the shark. Eric, Wepner, thanks for your disappointment. It's the best birthday present a girl could ask for.
-
Well this thread has certainly jumped the shark. Eric, Wepner, thanks for your disappointment. It's the best birthday present a girl could ask for.
Happy Birthday!
-
21st, at that. Happy Birthday.
-
I'm pretty sure I can get off on some sort of time difference technicality to where I expressed my disappointment in you on a day that wasn't your birthday for me (or maybe you) anyway:
(http://caccioppoli.com/Animated%20gifs/Birthday%20(happy)/0126.gif)
-
Happy Birthday. Enjoy a cheap legal drink if that's something you do.
-
Happy Birthday. Enjoy a cheap legal drink if that's something you do.
It's not as fun now that it's legal.
-
Happy Birthday. Enjoy a cheap legal drink if that's something you do.
It's not as fun now that it's legal.
I mean if you're looking for that thrill again you could always take a few swigs in front of an AA meeting. Not necessarily illegal but still questionable.
-
Happy Birthday. Enjoy a cheap legal drink if that's something you do.
It's not as fun now that it's legal.
Enjoy the marijuana then while it's still illegal?
/BACK ON TOPIC!
-
Well done, rebel.
I'm not opposed to decriminalizing marijuana from a legal perspective. I know literally nobody who's been helped more than harmed by use of the drug, and quite a few heavy, habitual users, so I don't think that it would be good for people, but there's only so much a government can do to protect people from themselves, and personal liberty is very important.
As for heroin: what the hell are you all thinking?
-
Well done, rebel.
I'm not opposed to decriminalizing marijuana from a legal perspective. I know literally nobody who's been helped more than harmed by use of the drug, and quite a few heavy, habitual users, so I don't think that it would be good for people, but there's only so much a government can do to protect people from themselves, and personal liberty is very important.
As for heroin: what the hell are you all thinking?
...that individuals own their own bodies. It's sort of important and applies to quite a few issues.
-
Well this thread has certainly jumped the shark. Eric, Wepner, thanks for your disappointment. It's the best birthday present a girl could ask for.
Happy birthday but... I always thought you were a dude. Cause of the "Grant" thing. And the pic of a dude.
Edit: And the "male" thing. Wait a minute it's not really your birthday is it?
-
As for heroin: what the hell are you all thinking?
+1 to Spork's comment. I don't need to tell people they can't do something. I may educate them on why they shouldn't, then let them choose.
And on a practical level, I believe that most of the harm is done in attempting to obtain it. I think most people will choose not to use it, knowing the consequences, but the ones who will, will anyways (and are more drawn to do so while it's illegal).
Edit: And the "male" thing. Wait a minute it's not really your birthday is it?
(S)he's in his/her exploratory years. Give (him/her) a break. Racist.
-
There's no point beyond which the public interest takes precedence?
-
There's no point beyond which the public interest takes precedence?
Yeah . . . I'm kinda surprised that so many people are OK with substances that are immediately habit forming and cause long term irreversible brain changes (like cocaine).
Pot is pretty innocuous, an easy case can be made for legalizing it. Prostitution is safer for all involved if it's legalized and regulated, I can buy many of the arguments associated with this.
Cocaine causes a long term dulling of your ability to sense pleasure pretty much from the first usage. Heroin is ranked as the most physically harmful and addictive drug around. I also don't think there's widespread societal acceptance of these drugs as there is with pot. Regulation of these drugs makes sense to me personally.
I think that a balance must be struck between personal liberty and societal good. Banning lots of stuff swings too far one way, banning nothing swings too far the other. Of course, the centrist viewpoint is rarely represented in these arguments . . .
-
There's no point beyond which the public interest takes precedence?
Yes, when they actually do something to harm the public. If they're sitting in their own filth, slowly killing themselves by their own choices... I feel bad for them, but... it's their life.
If they're wildly driving down the road running over old ladies, children and puppies... It is time to intervene. There are DUI laws on the books to handle it.
I have issues with the "they might do harm" laws. For a grand example: see the current kerfuffle over the NSA's data collection. It's for the public interest!
In general I think the government needs to intervene when there is an initiation of force. (There are obviously nuance special cases to this, but otherwise, it is pretty clear cut.)
-
There's no point beyond which the public interest takes precedence?
Yes, when they actually do something to harm the public. If they're sitting in their own filth, slowly killing themselves by their own choices... I feel bad for them, but... it's their life.
Okay, just for the sake of argument:
What if they are on government assistance? It seems to me that it becomes every taxpayer's issue at that point.
-
Okay, just for the sake of argument:
What if they are on government assistance? It seems to me that it becomes every taxpayer's issue at that point.
I sort of agree with this sentiment, but it has some conflicting issues within. If you believe a social safety net is important (I do) and you also believe in personal liberties (I do) the person still has to be left with a certain amount of trust to make their own choices. Could you make it a stipulation of receiving assistance? I suppose you could.
Would you extend that requirement to every government employee? Or would it only work if you prove the use of a drug is the reason the person requires assistance. And by cause I do not mean monetary. I mean addiction.
With that said I do feel it is irresponsible for a person on government assistance to be buying alcohol, cigarettes, or recreational drugs.....
-
I sort of agree with this sentiment, but it has some conflicting issues within. If you believe a social safety net is important (I do) and you also believe in personal liberties (I do) the person still has to be left with a certain amount of trust to make their own choices. Could you make it a stipulation of receiving assistance? I suppose you could.
Would you extend that requirement to every government employee? Or would it only work if you prove the use of a drug is the reason the person requires assistance. And by cause I do not mean monetary. I mean addiction.
Hasn't this already been done to a certain extent? Drug testing for government employees and welfare recipients?
-
I sort of agree with this sentiment, but it has some conflicting issues within. If you believe a social safety net is important (I do) and you also believe in personal liberties (I do) the person still has to be left with a certain amount of trust to make their own choices. Could you make it a stipulation of receiving assistance? I suppose you could.
Would you extend that requirement to every government employee? Or would it only work if you prove the use of a drug is the reason the person requires assistance. And by cause I do not mean monetary. I mean addiction.
Hasn't this already been done to a certain extent? Drug testing for government employees and welfare recipients?
I would assume that a government employee would have to take a drug test upon/before being hired. Which is pretty standard practice for many private employers as well.
Do elected officials have to take drug tests? I know the daily show did a pretty hilarious interview with an elected official in Florida when drug testing for welfare was up for vote there.
I do not know if, across the board, those receiving government assistance are required to take a drug test.
-
There's no point beyond which the public interest takes precedence?
Yes, when they actually do something to harm the public. If they're sitting in their own filth, slowly killing themselves by their own choices... I feel bad for them, but... it's their life.
Okay, just for the sake of argument:
What if they are on government assistance? It seems to me that it becomes every taxpayer's issue at that point.
so this assumes I believe in that and is a bit of a different topic...
But assistance programs are not meant to pay for "luxuries"... and I'm pretty sure recreational drugs fall into that category. I suspect this is a small enough area of the population that it's a non-issue. If you have enough to buy drugs and necessities, you're probably either not on public assistance or you're committing welfare fraud. ...and welfare fraud is pretty much already a covered crime.
-
But assistance programs are not meant to pay for "luxuries"... and I'm pretty sure recreational drugs fall into that category. I suspect this is a small enough area of the population that it's a non-issue. If you have enough to buy drugs and necessities, you're probably either not on public assistance or you're committing welfare fraud. ...and welfare fraud is pretty much already a covered crime.
Unless you are spending so money on drugs instead of what you really need, and then expect the government to make up the difference. Or people might have money, and then the drugs hinder their ability to bring in steady income.
In other words, I'm not saying poor people can afford drugs. I'm saying that drugs can make people "poor." It's not necessarily a matter of people using welfare money to buy drugs. They could be using welfare for necessities because whatever other money they have or receive is going to drugs. (Incidentally, welfare is the only "public assistance." I'd also count things like EITC, which automatically goes to people who make under a certain amount of money, and then they can use the money however they want.)
I don't know if there is any data that details how widespread this behavior is, but it is certainly not a stretch in my mind at all that this this could be a pretty common thing.
-
I sort of agree with this sentiment, but it has some conflicting issues within. If you believe a social safety net is important (I do) and you also believe in personal liberties (I do) the person still has to be left with a certain amount of trust to make their own choices. Could you make it a stipulation of receiving assistance? I suppose you could.
Would you extend that requirement to every government employee? Or would it only work if you prove the use of a drug is the reason the person requires assistance. And by cause I do not mean monetary. I mean addiction.
Hasn't this already been done to a certain extent? Drug testing for government employees and welfare recipients?
The State of Florida started drug testing all of their welfare recipients. It cost them more money to administer the tests than they saved from the few that failed them. This vision of people on welfare as lazy drug addicted parasites is a myth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0
-
As for heroin: what the hell are you all thinking?
In what way does throwing an addict in jail help? Does he get treatment there? Is it less expensive? Will the felony conviction put him on a better path upon release?
It's essentially the worst way possible to handle the problem of addiction.
(for the record, I'm not in favor of legalization, which would mean you could walk into your local 7-11 and buy a balloon, but I am in favor of decriminalization)
-
The State of Florida started drug testing all of their welfare recipients. It cost them more money to administer the tests than they saved from the few that failed them.
Yeah, I've heard of that.
Except that the creation of the testing program could have very well decreased the number of them who take drugs. In that regard, it might have been a doubly worthwhile program in that it decreased both drug use and the amount of welfare that went to purchase drugs.
-
The State of Florida started drug testing all of their welfare recipients. It cost them more money to administer the tests than they saved from the few that failed them.
Yeah, I've heard of that.
Except that the creation of the testing program could have very well decreased the number of them who take drugs. In that regard, it might have been a doubly worthwhile program in that it decreased both drug use and the amount of welfare that went to purchase drugs.
You can attempt to spin that to your own preconceived notions however you'd like. But the fact is the State of Florida paid more for testing than they saved by failed tests. It cost them more money to be assholes. As it should be.
-
You can attempt to spin that to your own preconceived notions however you'd like.
You forgot to tell me that I "hate" people on welfare.
Sorry that I mistook this for a mutually respectful discussion.
-
You can attempt to spin that to your own preconceived notions however you'd like.
You forgot to tell me that I "hate" people on welfare.
Sorry that I mistook this for a mutually respectful discussion.
What I wrote wasn't respectful? Your thin skin is showing.
-
You said something about "preconceived notions" that I never expressed, never implied, and never even thought of. And calling my theory "spin" doesn't make any sense when I have absolutely no agenda in this regard.
That's not what people do to others in respectful conversations.
My skin isn't thin. I simply try to avoid silly things that aren't worth my time.
-
Enjoy your day!
(edited out part that didn't make sense after moderator deletions)
-
Well, all of that was certainly worth the earlier vulgarity and insults.
Sorry to the rest of you that it happened. This is why we can't have nice things.
Anyway, back to that Mustachian Political Voting...
-
Anyway, back to that Mustachian Political Voting...
To move things in a completely different direction, I'd love to hear from the four people who checked fiscal liberal, social conservative, for no other reason than that just seems like a very rare combination, not just here.
-
Is there a trend for pretending to be offended today? Did Victorian pearl-clutching come back into style?
-
We have successfully created and debated controversial threads in the past without issue. Please remain as civil as I know you all can be. I'd hate to lock a good discussion because of one or two bad apples.
-
There's no point beyond which the public interest takes precedence?
What are you worried about them doing? Anything they might do that is harmful is already criminalized.
If someone wants to sit at home and shoot heroin despite being educated on why that's a bad idea, it's not my place to stop them.
If they go out and drive, they're already breaking the law (driving under the influence). If they go out and rob a place, they're breaking the law (theft).
Any potential harms are already criminalized.
So there is no public good in stopping them from harming no one but themselves, and if there are other harms, they'll properly be dealt with.
-
There's no point beyond which the public interest takes precedence?
What are you worried about them doing? Anything they might do that is harmful is already criminalized.
Thank you. That was what I was trying to say, but shorter and more succinct.
IMO, laws should be simple, short and non-overlapping.
-
Anyway, back to that Mustachian Political Voting...
To move things in a completely different direction, I'd love to hear from the four people who checked fiscal liberal, social conservative, for no other reason than that just seems like a very rare combination, not just here.
It sounds very Roman Catholic to me. Strong safety net combined with conservative social values. But I would agree, it's not one I see a lot of.
Note how many Green and Libertarian voters there were, when the reality is they don't comprise a large voting slice of the public at all. Not that Al Gore sends Ralph Nader any Christmas cards, though.... (Oh Greens, just look at what you got in 2000 when you put a practical decision behind an ideological one - a clear conscience and your worst possible result).
-
There's no point beyond which the public interest takes precedence?
What are you worried about them doing? Anything they might do that is harmful is already criminalized.
If someone wants to sit at home and shoot heroin despite being educated on why that's a bad idea, it's not my place to stop them.
If they go out and drive, they're already breaking the law (driving under the influence). If they go out and rob a place, they're breaking the law (theft).
Any potential harms are already criminalized.
So there is no public good in stopping them from harming no one but themselves, and if there are other harms, they'll properly be dealt with.
Excellent point!
I should note that this is the tactic Portugal has taken -- if you're caught with a personal supply of heroin, they send you to a social worker to help you get your life on track; offer a prescription that will help you taper off; provide you with free needles, regardless. (That last one has seen the spread of HIV in the country slow by a decent margin.) At no point does the judiciary get involved, unless you actually commit one of the crimes people fear from drug users.
Last I heard, Portugal was still there-- it hasn't descended into anarchy or been cast into the ocean by an angry god. The country is saving tonnes of money on law enforcement, too. Which, considering the economic state of Iberia these days, can only be to the good.
Now, admittedly, self-reported drug use is up a bit (more people admit to using things like MMDA, which is probably safer than alcohol) but that could very well just be the "self-reported" bit. You're more likely to tell the government about your habits if you needn't fear them locking you up for them. I can't know that for certain, though, so I'll take the numbers at face value. That counters the suggestion I made earlier in the thread that drug use might decrease with decriminalization. Mea culpa. Guess I was wrong.
-
Now, admittedly, self-reported drug use is up a bit (more people admit to using things like MMDA, which is probably safer than alcohol) but that could very well just be the "self-reported" bit. You're more likely to tell the government about your habits if you needn't fear them locking you up for them.
If we assume that actual use is up and not just reported use, that strengthens the pro-legalization side even more. Usage is up, but the supposed ills aren't.
-
Before I started working a job that sometimes deals with lower income people I would have been for decriminalizing everything. After seeing in detail how some of these people live I have to say I'm for keeping the hard drugs banned. Some of these people aren't capable of running their lives like the educated users of the mmm forum. I think it would be cruel to give them easy access to something that will make their lives even shittier.
I don't really see any upside to legalizing the hard stuff.
-
Before I started working a job that sometimes deals with lower income people I would have been for decriminalizing everything. After seeing in detail how some of these people live I have to say I'm for keeping the hard drugs banned. Some of these people aren't capable of running their lives like the educated users of the mmm forum. I think it would be cruel to give them easy access to something that will make their lives even shittier.
I don't really see any upside to legalizing the hard stuff.
Isn't that kind of catering to the lowest common denominator? I'm almost positive legalizing hard drugs would save money. That's one upside. Some of those dollars are going to be shifted from enforcement/corrections to healthcare of course, but I think it's a better outcome for almost everyone.
-
Before I started working a job that sometimes deals with lower income people I would have been for decriminalizing everything. After seeing in detail how some of these people live I have to say I'm for keeping the hard drugs banned. Some of these people aren't capable of running their lives like the educated users of the mmm forum. I think it would be cruel to give them easy access to something that will make their lives even shittier.
I don't really see any upside to legalizing the hard stuff.
so, it isn't "the hard stuff"... it's "what I deem is right for me." Clearly there are people that will make mistakes here. Where you see "someone legally doing heroin," I also see "someone on their deathbed legally being able to use an experimental drug." These two are part of the same issue. Neither one may help, but no one has any business saying you can't do it.
-
Before I started working a job that sometimes deals with lower income people I would have been for decriminalizing everything. After seeing in detail how some of these people live I have to say I'm for keeping the hard drugs banned. Some of these people aren't capable of running their lives like the educated users of the mmm forum. I think it would be cruel to give them easy access to something that will make their lives even shittier.
I don't really see any upside to legalizing the hard stuff.
Are you opposed to legalizing it, or decriminalizing it? There's a difference.
Decriminalizing it, like the Portuguese have done,says that it's legal to own, but not to sell. So availability isn't going to go up much, but law enforcement no longer spends the majority of its time coming down with both boots on the disenfranchised. (well, maybe they still will, but at least they won't have drugs as the excuse.) That's much different from full legalization where you could pick up a pack of heroin at the corner store.
I should note, though, that you once could do just that. What were historical rates of drug abuse before we banned it, I wonder? Crime on the whole was much lower, so jazz-age addicts must have been less likely to resort to theft to get a fix from their grocer than modern ones from their dealer.
-
I think it would be cruel to give them easy access to something that will make their lives even shittier.
Ummm, they already have easy access to everything. Where do you think one currently procures hard drugs? Not at the country club, that's for sure.
-
Ummm, they already have easy access to everything. Where do you think one currently procures hard drugs? Not at the country club, that's for sure.
I know nothing of how easy hard drugs are to procure, but still maintain making them easier to access is like giving a man with poison ivy on his hands a porno and too much spare time.
Are you opposed to legalizing it, or decriminalizing it? There's a difference.
Decriminalizing it, like the Portuguese have done,says that it's legal to own, but not to sell. So availability isn't going to go up much, but law enforcement no longer spends the majority of its time coming down with both boots on the disenfranchised. (well, maybe they still will, but at least they won't have drugs as the excuse.) That's much different from full legalization where you could pick up a pack of heroin at the corner store.
I should note, though, that you once could do just that. What were historical rates of drug abuse before we banned it, I wonder? Crime on the whole was much lower, so jazz-age addicts must have been less likely to resort to theft to get a fix from their grocer than modern ones from their dealer.
If decriminalizing ownership but still keeping it illegal to sell is effective and cheap it sounds like a great idea. I haven't read any studies on the topic so my opinion could be swayed if I knew more.
so, it isn't "the hard stuff"... it's "what I deem is right for me." Clearly there are people that will make mistakes here. Where you see "someone legally doing heroin," I also see "someone on their deathbed legally being able to use an experimental drug." These two are part of the same issue. Neither one may help, but no one has any business saying you can't do it.
What? Are you saying heroin or whatever may have some sort of redeeming medical qualities? I'm failing to see the other part of this issue you're talking about. How are heroin and potentially life saving drugs related?
Isn't that kind of catering to the lowest common denominator? I'm almost positive legalizing hard drugs would save money. That's one upside. Some of those dollars are going to be shifted from enforcement/corrections to healthcare of course, but I think it's a better outcome for almost everyone.
I don't know what the financial ramifications could be to any drug policy change scenario. My point is simply that I don't see hard drug use as a "it's a victimless crime so I should be able to do it issue," I see it as giving toddlers paperclips in a room full of electrical outlets. Do you have any studies you could link to put some perspective on the financial aspect?
-
My point is simply that I don't see hard drug use as a "it's a victimless crime so I should be able to do it issue," I see it as giving toddlers paperclips in a room full of electrical outlets.
Who are you to decide full grown adults are mere toddlers unable to make their own decisions?
Certainly it may get to a point where someone is in that situation and there is some sort of court ordered rehab or something, but to arrogantly treat everyone as mere toddlers based on your perception of what they decide to do? Wow.
The rest of the post had some stuff wrong, but at least it wasn't offensive. Sheesh.
-
Ummm, they already have easy access to everything. Where do you think one currently procures hard drugs? Not at the country club, that's for sure.
I know nothing of how easy hard drugs are to procure, but still maintain making them easier to access is like giving a man with poison ivy on his hands a porno and too much spare time.
While I don't really agree with you: I absolutely love this metaphor.
so, it isn't "the hard stuff"... it's "what I deem is right for me." Clearly there are people that will make mistakes here. Where you see "someone legally doing heroin," I also see "someone on their deathbed legally being able to use an experimental drug." These two are part of the same issue. Neither one may help, but no one has any business saying you can't do it.
What? Are you saying heroin or whatever may have some sort of redeeming medical qualities? I'm failing to see the other part of this issue you're talking about. How are heroin and potentially life saving drugs related?
[/quote]
They're related in that they're both made illegal by the government. Does heroin have redeeming qualities? Absolutely. "Heroin" is a street name for diamorphine. There are tons of legal uses of opiates.
-
Who are you to decide full grown adults are mere toddlers unable to make their own decisions?
Certainly it may get to a point where someone is in that situation and there is some sort of court ordered rehab or something, but to arrogantly treat everyone as mere toddlers based on your perception of what they decide to do? Wow.
The rest of the post had some stuff wrong, but at least it wasn't offensive. Sheesh.
I don't recall saying anything factual about drugs beyond my personal opinion... what was incorrect?
I understand how you can construe my thoughts on the topic as offensive... it may sound less offensive to explain my position with a hypothetical scenario: All drugs are made legal today. A few years pass and people that have tried one or more hard drugs since they were made legal are polled. The poll is one question: Do you regret trying whatever drug you took?
Scenario A: The poll shows that people don't typically regret trying whatever drug they took, and their lives were not significantly affected.
Scenario B: The poll shows that people typically regret trying whatever drug they took, and their lives were significantly affected.
If scenario A played out I would be for legalizing, if scenario B played out I would be in favor of laws that reduce the availability of hard drugs. I think scenario B is more likely.
-
I'm not sure why legality/illegality has much to do with your scenarios. Despite current laws making drugs illegal, drugs are prevalent. People use them everyday in every city in America. If you made a list of reasons not to do crack, I don't think "It's illegal" would be the number 1 reason. Probably wouldn't even be in the top 5. I don't see how you'd get a huge run on crack if it was decriminalized. Do you really think there is a group of people with the mindset that they'd love to smoke some crack if only it was legal to do so?
The main issue is that this is a medical problem, not a criminal one. So why do we treat it as such? Where's the benefit to society? Has it reduced our drug usage at all? Seems to me it's only increased costs and further ostracized anyone who has ever made a bad choice by permanently stamping them with a scarlet letter (i.e. convicted felon), making it nearly impossible for them to ever break the cycle of addiction.
-
Crash seems to be ignoring externalities of criminalization and also taking as a given that criminalizing drugs decreases use and then arguing the position that drugs are bad. He's supposed to be arguing that criminalizing drugs is good. Decriminalization seems to be working for Portugal. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-after-decriminalization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/)
For anyone interested, Youtube has both the US and UK Intelligence Squared debates on the topic. The audio version of the US one is also available for free in the Zune marketplace and presumably iTunes.
Edit:
Wikipedia says the Portugal case might not be quite so clear cut. From the numbers listed, I assume "lifetime use" means 'regularly throughout one's lifetime', not 'at least once in a lifetime'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observations)
-
Who are you to decide full grown adults are mere toddlers unable to make their own decisions?
Certainly it may get to a point where someone is in that situation and there is some sort of court ordered rehab or something, but to arrogantly treat everyone as mere toddlers based on your perception of what they decide to do? Wow.
The rest of the post had some stuff wrong, but at least it wasn't offensive. Sheesh.
I don't recall saying anything factual about drugs beyond my personal opinion... what was incorrect?
I understand how you can construe my thoughts on the topic as offensive... it may sound less offensive to explain my position with a hypothetical scenario: All drugs are made legal today. A few years pass and people that have tried one or more hard drugs since they were made legal are polled. The poll is one question: Do you regret trying whatever drug you took?
Scenario A: The poll shows that people don't typically regret trying whatever drug they took, and their lives were not significantly affected.
Scenario B: The poll shows that people typically regret trying whatever drug they took, and their lives were significantly affected.
If scenario A played out I would be for legalizing, if scenario B played out I would be in favor of laws that reduce the availability of hard drugs. I think scenario B is more likely.
Wow.
I'd absolutely be for it in either scenario. I think people should be free to make their own choices, be educated on the consequences, sure, and then make them anyways. Why do we need to be a nanny for them, deciding "you will regret this, so I won't let you do it."
-
No matter how financially independent you are, the government has power over you, the citizen, unless you fight back.
-
I'd absolutely be for it in either scenario. I think people should be free to make their own choices, be educated on the consequences, sure, and then make them anyways.
Different core values I guess.
Crash seems to be ignoring externalities of criminalization and also taking as a given that criminalizing drugs decreases use and then arguing the position that drugs are bad. He's supposed to be arguing that criminalizing drugs is good.
Are you opposed to legalizing it, or decriminalizing it? There's a difference.
Decriminalizing it, like the Portuguese have done,says that it's legal to own, but not to sell. So availability isn't going to go up much, but law enforcement no longer spends the majority of its time coming down with both boots on the disenfranchised. (well, maybe they still will, but at least they won't have drugs as the excuse.) That's much different from full legalization where you could pick up a pack of heroin at the corner store.
I should note, though, that you once could do just that. What were historical rates of drug abuse before we banned it, I wonder? Crime on the whole was much lower, so jazz-age addicts must have been less likely to resort to theft to get a fix from their grocer than modern ones from their dealer.
If decriminalizing ownership but still keeping it illegal to sell is effective and cheap it sounds like a great idea. I haven't read any studies on the topic so my opinion could be swayed if I knew more.
I'm not sure why legality/illegality has much to do with your scenarios. Despite current laws making drugs illegal, drugs are prevalent. People use them everyday in every city in America...
The main issue is that this is a medical problem...
By what standard are you determining drugs are prevalent? If I say I'm for heroin being used in medical research (I am), will you be satisfied?
-
By what standard are you determining drugs are prevalent? If I say I'm for heroin being used in medical research (I am), will you be satisfied?
Are drugs hard to get? I've never had any problem. I've never heard of anyone having any problem. They are readily available to anyone that wants them. Even if you don't personally know someone that deals, they're sold in open air markets to anyone with cash. The fact that they're illegal doesn't make them hard to find. This is why I concluded that they're prevalent.
You, novice drug buyer, could score any drug you want to. Here's how. Do a google search for the street name of whatever drug you're looking for, drive to your local dilapidated area (E St. Louis?) with $40 tonight, and find the dude standing on the corner selling drugs. Don't worry if you miss the first one. There are dozens. Exchange cash for drugs.
Did you know almost half of our federal prisoners are being held for drug crimes? HALF! It's insane. Not only is it ridiculously expensive, it doesn't do anything to stop drugs from being sold. One guy gets busted, next guy steps up to take his place. Every. Single. Time.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/02/1386251/almost-half-of-federal-prisoners-held-for-drug-crimes/
-
I'd absolutely be for it in either scenario. I think people should be free to make their own choices, be educated on the consequences, sure, and then make them anyways.
Different core values I guess.
Seems like it.
I value autonomy, so I would let people make their own choices.
What core value(s) are you coming from where you'd prevent people from being able to do something if they would regret it later?
-
I'd absolutely be for it in either scenario. I think people should be free to make their own choices, be educated on the consequences, sure, and then make them anyways.
Different core values I guess.
Seems like it.
I value autonomy, so I would let people make their own choices.
What core value(s) are you coming from where you'd prevent people from being able to do something if they would regret it later?
I see sort of like keeping people from accidentally falling off of a cliff by putting up a fence. Though a Portugal style fence seems better.
-
I see sort of like keeping people from accidentally falling off of a cliff by putting up a fence. Though a Portugal style fence seems better.
Put up a sign warning them it's dangerous, etc.?
I'm still curious how you'd define your core values in this case (since you brought up the phrase, and it makes sense to me).
-
I see sort of like keeping people from accidentally falling off of a cliff by putting up a fence. Though a Portugal style fence seems better.
Put up a sign warning them it's dangerous, etc.?
I'm still curious how you'd define your core values in this case (since you brought up the phrase, and it makes sense to me).
The fence thing is (IMO) an excellent metaphor. People understand gravity. People know it's dangerous to stand on the edge of a precipice. Some people do it successfully. Some people fall. Some people blame others for lack of a fence or a warning sign that says "danger" and will sue. Some people want fences around everything everywhere just in case we might hurt ourselves.
We make life too damn complicated sometimes.
-
I see sort of like keeping people from accidentally falling off of a cliff by putting up a fence. Though a Portugal style fence seems better.
Put up a sign warning them it's dangerous, etc.?
I'm still curious how you'd define your core values in this case (since you brought up the phrase, and it makes sense to me).
The fence thing is (IMO) an excellent metaphor. People understand gravity. People know it's dangerous to stand on the edge of a precipice. Some people do it successfully. Some people fall. Some people blame others for lack of a fence or a warning sign that says "danger" and will sue. Some people want fences around everything everywhere just in case we might hurt ourselves.
We make life too damn complicated sometimes.
Pffft, the obvious answer is to have everyone within 1 mile of a precipice/cliff/6" step wear a harness and lead line. Simple and effective. There is no way it could not work.
-
Pffft, the obvious answer is to have everyone within 1 mile of a precipice/cliff/6" step wear a harness and lead line. Simple and effective. There is no way it could not work.
bwahahaha! You have potential to make either a fine personal injury lawyer or government regulator. ;)
-
Another thing to consider is that we can't keep drugs out of prisons. They're heavily guarded, monitored, strictly controlled, etc. and we still can't even keep prisoners from getting access to both legal and illegal drugs. Knowing this, how in the world can we ever expect to keep drugs out of society at large?
-
I may be back-tracking too far in the conversation, but I don't think a discussion of whether pot should be legal needs to necessarily devolve into whether ALL controlled substances should be legal.
Marijuana is currently a Schedule 1 controlled substance. To be classified as schedule 1 the following must be true:
1) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
2) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
None of these describe marijuana, as evidenced by the large quantities of doctors prescribing it to patients in the US and worldwide, and numerous studies that show it has a low potential for physical addiction relative to other controlled substances. You know what does fit this classification? Alcohol. You'll notice it is absent from the schedule 1 list of substances, despite clearly fitting the criteria. It's a head-scratcher, for sure...
At a minimum, pot should be reduced to Schedule 3:
1) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
2) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
Whether you think it is a wise choice for people is utterly irrelevant. Credit card debt is a terrible life choice, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Reducing it to S3 would at least make it legally available to people who need it for medical reasons. For reference, Tylenol w/codeine and Vicodin are S3 substances. Personally, yeah I think all the drugs should be legal, regulated, and taxed. But I can see why there is a cultural hurdle to get over before that can happen. However, I fail to see how anyone can make a rational argument against legalizing it for medical use. "Fear of pot-heads" is not a valid reason for keeping it on S1.
-
I see sort of like keeping people from accidentally falling off of a cliff by putting up a fence. Though a Portugal style fence seems better.
Put up a sign warning them it's dangerous, etc.?
I'm still curious how you'd define your core values in this case (since you brought up the phrase, and it makes sense to me).
I'd say I value autonomy with some exceptions for public safety/welfare/health. Up until a few years ago I'd have said I valued independence (for better or worse you live with the choices you make), but I've seen some very poor people through work that have forced me change my views after seeing some of the terrible lives they and their kids lead.
-
While I was expecting the number of fiscal and social conservatives to be fairly low, I was not expecting Greens and Libertarians (who rarely command even 2% of the vote) to outpoll them. I knew this was a socially liberal site, I'm a bit surprised by just how much so.
Compared to the general population, frugality isn't the only thing that separates the MMM crowd (when seen as a group from 20,000 feet).
-
While I was expecting the number of fiscal and social conservatives to be fairly low, I was not expecting Greens and Libertarians (who rarely command even 2% of the vote) to outpoll them. I knew this was a socially liberal site, I'm a bit surprised by just how much so.
Rule of thumb: Everyone claims to be a libertarian... they just don't vote that way!
-
While I was expecting the number of fiscal and social conservatives to be fairly low, I was not expecting Greens and Libertarians (who rarely command even 2% of the vote) to outpoll them. I knew this was a socially liberal site, I'm a bit surprised by just how much so.
How many people who voted that in this poll voted that way in the last election (in which they voted)?
Very few. People think only one of two candidates can win, so only one of two will.
I voted other than those two major parties, but I'm betting the majority of those here who say that's what they align closest with doesn't vote that way.
-
While I was expecting the number of fiscal and social conservatives to be fairly low, I was not expecting Greens and Libertarians (who rarely command even 2% of the vote) to outpoll them. I knew this was a socially liberal site, I'm a bit surprised by just how much so.
How many people who voted that in this poll voted that way in the last election (in which they voted)?
Very few. People think only one of two candidates can win, so only one of two will.
I voted other than those two major parties, but I'm betting the majority of those here who say that's what they align closest with doesn't vote that way.
I may rage against the unfairness of a first-past-the-post ballot system, but man! I am so thankful I at least don't live in a two-party (from some angles, it really looks like single-party) state. I voted my conscience in the last election, and my guy almost got in.
-
While I was expecting the number of fiscal and social conservatives to be fairly low, I was not expecting Greens and Libertarians (who rarely command even 2% of the vote) to outpoll them. I knew this was a socially liberal site, I'm a bit surprised by just how much so.
How many people who voted that in this poll voted that way in the last election (in which they voted)?
Very few. People think only one of two candidates can win, so only one of two will.
I voted other than those two major parties, but I'm betting the majority of those here who say that's what they align closest with doesn't vote that way.
I typically vote Dem, but I voted Libertarian in the last election, along with a few other folks I know. Two of us typically vote Dem but were so thoroughly bent out of shape by Obama - Reid - Pelosi we simply could not hold our nose and endorse a 2nd term for our POTUS. I usually find the Liberatarians too "out there" (read - unrealistic absolutists) on many issues but there is much I share in common with them.
To Spork - I hear you. I know so many conservatives who talk about FREEDOM (their caps, not mine) while simultaneously supporting restrictions to abortion, gay marriage, decriminalizing drugs, etc. And then you have Dems who talk about how conservatives are trampling their rights while simultaneously pushing for laws banning the possession of firearms, opposing experimentation with charter schools, etc. Regardless of where one finds themself on a particular issue, I've found that most (not all) people are actually quite comfortable restricting other peoples freedoms on the one hand while whining about their own on the other.