I'm scared to death and....

[DelaWho???]

Damn but I love a good spirited debate and so far this one hasn't turned into a flamefest. Great Posts Everyone ......
Yes even you guys that I'm fervently disagreeing with......

Grady great post that turned into a commentary on society as a whole......

Maybe this should be moved to non-pool related area

McCue Banger McCue

 

[Donovan]

about 1975 one neighborhood in town was plagued by some punk running up behind old women and knocking them down with a Dick Butkus hit then steeling their purse.these were elderly on canes ect.it didn't matter to him.well this guy i knew who was a policeman and an extremly good street fighter dressed one day like a lil ole crippled lady.hunched over limping along he went down the side walk when all of a sudden he heard the pitter patter of a punk coming up fast behind him .in a split second he turned at the perfect moment and proceeded to give this punk who had severly beat over 10 elderly people the worst beating this punk could ever have nightmares about..on top of that the punk was sentenced to prison for about 10 years......what a wonderful and true story this is....seems many towns and areas could use this tactic..

That is a great story.

I can see the button at Spencer's Gifts now:

Save a Granny
Beat a Mugger

 

[jjinfla]

I wonder if the muggers came from New Orleans. A totally Democrat City that sure didn't know how to take care of itself.

Another good reason to keep away from Las Vegas.

But then there is an awful lot of crime here in Ocala, Orlando, Daytona, where they are hunting a serial killer. Sometimes I think there is more crime here in Florida than good old Chicago that I left 12 years ago.

Jake

 

[SlimShafty]

Protect us from ourselves or from the destruction we may cause to others, as we should do with children, and forever the people will be children...irresponsible.

Your right, We the people is all but disappearing right before our eyes, The constitution was to protect us from the the government, not the other way around.

Liberty carries with it a great burden of responsibility, but such burdens are the source of personal growth and faith in self-reliance / responsibility.

And sadly nobody wants to carry that burden anymore, they just assume someone else take care of things for them. Freedom is the right to question and change the established way of doing things, and to keep an ever watchful eye on the people we entrusted with it's precious care. Now the keepers we continue to put in these positions have "We the people" fighting amongst ourselves and they want to keep us heavily divided, they want us disenfranchised.

Heroin was a legal over-the-counter drug, even accessible to minors for many years. Of course there were occassional addicts, but there numbers were much less than the numbers with drinking problems.

The nanny state, and the nihilistic education system, along with the drug war is much to blame for the growing street violence I believe. Treat people as though they can't be trusted and soon enough they will confirm it.

Big government doesn't mind some turmoil in the streets both here and abroad to keep people in fear, show them a larger government rule and law is the only answer. The more danger and fear perceived by the public, the faster they give in to changes. Sadly people may feel they can not survive without a large and over protective government that may precariously lean toward more laws and tighter restriction all in the name of safety or our own good.

So the real problem may be the government coming in and placing more laws, cameras on every street corner, ID's, searches etc. all in the guise of public safety. When much of the problems are due to poor local government, mis use of funds and the total lack of many citizens to take any interest in their government or neighborhood. I have seen crime rates fall, just by the work of the local citizens that would not tolerate punks or corrupt local officials not doing an effective job, even entire schools cleaned up where the kids even changed because they had a part in it. Amazingly laws tied them up and tried to stop it from happening! Sadly the whole thing will soon lead to tighter laws and less freedom, unless people change and stick their nose into things, start to take some responsibility and change back to a true bottom up government by hte people for the people.

At the end of the day Colin is right on this, we have lost the burden of responsibility, and just assume let others decide our fate hoping they have our best interest at heart, and not a special interest.

The government was run by the people for the people, we lost control, then lost interest, now the people are run by the government, who in turn are selling us out to a corporate elite. Is it any wonder why people don't like politics and just ignore it all.

Brain hurts, need to play pool

 

[pooltchr]

Our president should order the marines to go to the drug suplying countries in South America and wipe them of the world map.Then our kids will be free of drugs.If all the bar tenders are imprisoned for life we will be free of drunk driving accidents.

You are looking in the wrong direction. If we arrest all the car salesmen, there would never be any car wrecks. Make lakes, rivers, and the ocean illegal, and nobody would ever drown. Outlaw airplanes and there will never be another airline hijacking.
Nothing is going to change until people are held accountable for their own actions. It's not the bartender's fault...it's the person who was drinking and then got behind the wheel. I sell pool cues. If someone gets drunk in a bar and kills someone with the cue, is it my fault for selling it to him, or his fault for swinging it at someone's head?
We are all responsible for our own actions and decisions. There are laws against drinking and driving, but how many people are out there with licenses who have multiple DWI convictions? Get tougher on the criminals rather than making excuses for their actions, or trying to blame someone else.
Steve

 

[vagabond]

You are looking in the wrong direction.

Hi pool tchr,
No Sir,I am looking in the right direction.VICARIOUS LIABILITY is inherent in our American way of thinking and American Legal system. These Laws are made by the Legislators who were elected by the American citizens.
Yes it is your fault for selling the cue to that man.You should have known that person is likely to indulge in that kind of behavior.You should be asked to pay the hospital bills+some money for loss of wages + money for pain and suffering + you should never be allowed to sell pool cues anymore.This is our American way.

 

[sjm]

sjm,
Your metaphor of giving children blowtorches hits the exact point of difference between libertarians like Jeff and myself and the rest.

Protect us from ourselves or from the destruction we may cause to others, as we should do with children, and forever the people will be children...irresponsible.

Liberty carries with it a great burden of responsibility, but such burdens are the source of personal growth and faith in self-reliance / responsibility.

.....and some of these burdens, in my view, are the burdens and responsibilities that man (the species, not the gender) has proven time and time again unable to carry. I believe that this is why virtually all societies conclude that imposing laws upon themselves furthers their safety and quality of life.

 

[chefjeff]

No easy topic here, Jeff.

I use the term "free" as is relates to the term "free economy," in which supply will, as a rule, meet demand, and in which channels of distribution are unimpeded, regarldess of what products, services, and commodities are desired by consumers.

Do you object to laws requiring prescriptions to obtain certain drugs? To me, giving unimpeded access to all drugs would be the equivalent of giving a small child a blow torch to play with. Giving them the blow torch, in and of itself, does not harm anybody, but common sense tells you it's not a very good idea, and a court, quite properly, would assign some of the responsibility to you, if it resulted in something tragic.

When common sense says that "free" distributon of certain goods, services or commodities is inherently dangerous and unnecessarily jeopardizes the well-being of members of society, most societies have seen it fit to use the law to protect their well-being, and that's something I deeply believe in.

Just one man's view, of course.

I edited my post after you quoted it, so you may want to reread it before continuing here.

I misunderstood your use of "free." I'm glad you clarified it and I agree with your use of the term in the context you provided. I don't agree on resticting that freedom to trade, though, as it's nobody's business except the traders.

I not only object to prescription laws for principal's sake, I object to them for practical reasons as well. I own my body, the doctor and govt. do not. If this ownership is real, I should be able to do anything to my body I want, as long as I don't intiate harm against another conscious being. Why should men with guns stop me? And if men with guns stop me when I'm harming no one else, then aren't they intitating force against me, an innocent person? And is this moral? I say not. It only leads to more violence, as illustrated by Danny's plight.

You make the comparison of giving a child a blow torch as the same as being able to buy whatever drug I want without some govt employee's permission. If you really believe this to be an accurate comparison, then why not call for a ban, or control anyway, on blow torches---just as you call for a ban on drugs? Why wouldn't banning/controlling blow torches be a good thing, also?

Jeff Livingston

 

[Craig Fales]

I do not have freedom to choose the color of the paint on my own house and that speaks volumes.

I'm guessing you live in a place with a homeowners ASSociation...if so, might I suggest moving...noone will tell me what color to paint my house that I'M paying for...
________

 

[Colin Colenso]

.....and some of these burdens, in my view, are the burdens and responsibilities that man (the species, not the gender) has proven time and time again unable to carry. I believe that this is why virtually all societies conclude that imposing laws upon themselves furthers their safety and quality of life.

First we need to clarify the difference between laws that punish for crimes that harm others and laws that prevent ownership of means that might at some future time contribute toward actions punishable under the first type of laws.

What passes as commonly known history, or historical interpretation, and that includes the daily news is mostly a sewer of confusion and lies. From my own reading and interpretation of history, the exact opposite of your opinion above is the case. The US being the a great example of how a largely free country became the world's economic powerhouse, with the highest standards of living, the source of much of the world's greatest ideas, from the period of 1780s to 1910....and thenceforth with the rise of the federal behemoth, a gradual stupifying of the population ensued.

The last 20 years of China's development provides additional testimony of a reversal from ignorance, as does the histories of many nations during their rises and falls.

 

[Craig Fales]

sjm,
Your metaphor of giving children blowtorches hits the exact point of difference between libertarians like Jeff and myself and the rest.

Protect us from ourselves or from the destruction we may cause to others, as we should do with children, and forever the people will be children...irresponsible.

Liberty carries with it a great burden of responsibility, but such burdens are the source of personal growth and faith in self-reliance / responsibility.

Heroin was a legal over-the-counter drug, even accessible to minors for many years. Of course there were occassional addicts, but there numbers were much less than the numbers with drinking problems.

The nanny state, and the nihilistic education system, along with the drug war is much to blame for the growing street violence I believe. Treat people as though they can't be trusted and soon enough they will confirm it.

When prohibition was lifted the amount of violence and murders dropped amazingly.

Tell me how many drunks are responsible for deaths on private property? hmmmm Business owners have a strong vested interest to remove potentially dangerous people from their premises. The roads are public premises, monitored by government, who oversee thousands of deaths every month. If a private company had 1/1000th as bad a record they'd be screamed out of business. And yet people think the government can fix these kind of problems using their one and only tool of choice = force. Well they might fix the problems, if they packed up and quit.
__________________

Well said....
________

 

[chefjeff]

oh i agree.make it legal and drug wars will probably end,but is that going to stop people from robbing,or killing others when they have no means to buy legal drugs?
people have been killed for the air jordans back in the day.there were those who could afford them and those who couldn't. some people who wanted them but couldn't afford them saved their pennies,or went with out,but some beat ppl for them and some even killed for them.
so if ppl in this nation are willing to hurt,mame and kill over footware,tell me they won't resort to illegal tatics to pay for their legal drugs.

i know ppl who were beaten for pizzas.my point is that making drugs legal is not going to rid us of drug related crimes unless they're free and limitless.

and where's your proof?is prohibition your proof?after prohibition the mob just looked for other avenues to make a buck.so we legalize drugs and all the drug dealers will get regular jobs because they were only in the business to provide a service to the community that wasn't available but should have been. they will lead productive lives in society now that drugs are legal.they will do the same,look for other illegal ways to make money.so eventually we'll just make everything legal to make everyone happy.hey will be living in the old west.

So, if we make sneakers illegal, legal drugs illegal, pizzas illegal, and everything of value illegal then crime would stop? Where do you draw the line? And can you maintain liberty with your "solutions?"

After prohibition, the mob moved more to other victimless crimes: prostitution, drugs other than alcohol, gambling, etc. They also moved into politics (JK, eg) to keep their market share intact. And they continued with killings, extortion, beatings, as that is the only way, sans a legal remedy, to stay in business.

You keep using the term "legalize" and I'm not calling for that. Reread my first post to sjm about that.

You are also making-up a pretend utopia for me and I am not for utopia, so those types of arguments fall flat. I never said people would not steal for legal drugs. People steal for legal drugs now. Since you seem new to the drug war debate, note that illegal drugs cost more (higher risks) so if someone steals for drugs, they must steal more when the drugs are illegal vs. legal. And because there's no legal way to arbitrate fraudulent transactions when drugs are illegal, violence goes up in the hoods when someone wants what they paid for and didn't get it.

Jeff Livingston

 

[smittie1984]

I don't agree with CJ and Colin that government has to be bad and that the ultimate salvation to human kind is corporate rule. Corporations operate off of a profit margin and greed is their downfall. With corporate rule, there will be a few rich people and a whole lot of poor people - the workers.

I'm assuming that when you say "Corporate Rule" you are refering to what is believed to happen under an un-regulated capitalistic system. I couldn't disagree more with your assumption.

Capitalism in it's purest form is the only way to go. Government regulation is not.

For an example at how capitalism works let's try this.

There are 3 pool halls near you. We will call them pool hall A, B, and C.
Right now they are all charging $10 an hour to play. They all have the same amount of tables. And every night they are packed out with the exception of pool hall C

Pool Hall A decides to take advantage of the people packing the place out. So they raise the rates to $12 an hour. Chances are people who are coming in for a little bit just to hit with some buddies won't leave. Since they do not frequent the pool hall every day and are not aware of the price change. But I'm thinking of the regulars who play almost everyday.

Pool Hall B sees this and raises their rates to $12 an hour with the added No-Smoking sign at the front. I'd start going there because I do not smoke and hate smoky pool halls. I'm willing to pay the extra $2 an hour to be in a non-smoking enviroment.

But Pool Hall C sees this and has 2 choices. Either A raise the prices and try to make more money off of each customer from the table. Or B lower the prices and try to get more customers. Well Pool Hall C decides to lower their prices down to $8 an hour. $4 less than Pool hall A&B. I decide to leave the non-smoking pool hall because I have vehicle payments and saving $4/8/12+ a night sounds good to me. Since I'm there longer because I'm playing cheaper I buy more food and beer. Which will make Pool Hall C more money than if they raised their rates. Yet I'm still happy because I got more than if the rates where higher so I come back.

The other pool halls seeing their customers leaving will then lower their rates maybe even lower to draw their clients back.

With Government regulation if a pool hall decides to raise their prices then the police force of the government will say "No you can't do that. It's not fair to the consumer. It's price gouging. If you do that we'll close your business. If you refuse to close we'll show up with police and if you refuse then we will kill you". And the owner of the pool hall not wanting to be killed will cave and we are stuck at $10 an hour compared to us getting $8 an hour.

This isn't pool related by much but the dependacy that our countrymen have on the government is frightning. And this problem overshadows who's playing who in the 9ball tournament.

Greed might be corporations down falls. But they can't be greedy without customers.

 

[chefjeff]

I believe that drugs and prostitution should be legalized. I also think that whatever two or more consenting adults want to do should be fine as long as they use some discretion - others that don't want to see it shouldn't be forced to.

I don't agree with CJ and Colin that government has to be bad and that the ultimate salvation to human kind is corporate rule. Corporations operate off of a profit margin and greed is their downfall. With corporate rule, there will be a few rich people and a whole lot of poor people - the workers.

Government rule can be effective and just. I doubt there is any system that would be able to deliver utopia whether it be corporate rule, government rule or a combination of the two. As long as people are involved, there will be problems.

Hi RickW...thank you for your reasonable response to this touchy issue.

For your information, corporate rule IS govt. rule. The corporation is a fictional creation of the govt. Now people can cooperate and invest without the govt being involved, but the "corporation" as it is known today could not exist without govt force. So I (and Colin, I bet) do NOT believe human kind will be saved by corporate rule. It will be "saved" by mutual agreements, tough.

Greed, per se, is NOT anyone's downfall; dishonesty in obtaining whatever a person is greedy for can be. This distinction is critical. Many in the "church" thread made the same mistake of believing the desire for money and having "too much" is evil. Not even close. Evil is intiating force against innocents. If you obtain money honestly, it is the exact opposite of evil; it is productive and good and the more you have, the more productivity and good you have produced.

You're right, utopia is not one of the choices, so, everybody, please quit insinuating that I'm for some kind of perfect world. Geez! The real utopian-thinkers are those drug warriors and supporters who believe that if we just spend another x billion dollars on the problem or take away just one more liberty, we can actually win the drug war. 40 years of this thinking and not one less drug user! Now, THAT irrationality is utopian thinking!

Again, I'm not for legalization; I'm for repeal of prohibition.

Jeff Livingston

 

[chefjeff]

.....and some of these burdens, in my view, are the burdens and responsibilities that man (the species, not the gender) has proven time and time again unable to carry. I believe that this is why virtually all societies conclude that imposing laws upon themselves furthers their safety and quality of life.

Sounds good, sjm, except for one little detail: The govt. is made of man. So I don't understand how man in govt is better able to be good than man not in govt. How can govt man carry the burden any better? Are they gods or something simply because they're govt.?

Sorry to jump in between you and Colin, but I had to ask.

Jeff Livingston

 

[sjm]

Jeff and Colin, I'll take my leave from this debate. We obviously have irreconcilable differences in political and social philosophy, and that's fine. I respect both your views and the manner in which you've presented them.

Thanks for sharing your views. I certainly learned something from our debate, but feel its continuation would be futile.

 

[chefjeff]

Jeff and Colin, I'll take my leave from this debate. We obviously have irreconcilable differences in political and social philosophy, and that's fine. I respect both your views and the manner in which you've presented them.

Thanks for sharing your views. I certainly learned something from our debate, but feel its continuation would be futile.

Playing "safety" on us, huh?

OK, later tater,

Jeff Livingston

 

[Colin Colenso]

Jeff and Colin, I'll take my leave from this debate. We obviously have irreconcilable differences in political and social philosophy, and that's fine. I respect both your views and the manner in which you've presented them.

Thanks for sharing your views. I certainly learned something from our debate, but feel its continuation would be futile.

We'll only get so far in converting you via this message board Trying to spread the libertarian/ish philosophy over a few points is usually pretty futile, though it may stimulate some to look further. I do suggest, if you have the time and inclination to look up your topics of interest at www.mises.org

Maybe one day we can have a deeper chat as you teach me some 14.1 tricks.
Colin

 

[Colin Colenso]

Hi RickW...thank you for your reasonable response to this touchy issue.

For your information, corporate rule IS govt. rule. The corporation is a fictional creation of the govt. Now people can cooperate and invest without the govt being involved, but the "corporation" as it is known today could not exist without govt force. So I (and Colin, I bet) do NOT believe human kind will be saved by corporate rule. It will be "saved" by mutual agreements, tough.

Greed, per se, is NOT anyone's downfall; dishonesty in obtaining whatever a person is greedy for can be. This distinction is critical. Many in the "church" thread made the same mistake of believing the desire for money and having "too much" is evil. Not even close. Evil is intiating force against innocents. If you obtain money honestly, it is the exact opposite of evil; it is productive and good and the more you have, the more productivity and good you have produced.

You're right, utopia is not one of the choices, so, everybody, please quit insinuating that I'm for some kind of perfect world. Geez! The real utopian-thinkers are those drug warriors and supporters who believe that if we just spend another x billion dollars on the problem or take away just one more liberty, we can actually win the drug war. 40 years of this thinking and not one less drug user! Now, THAT irrationality is utopian thinking!

Again, I'm not for legalization; I'm for repeal of prohibition.

Jeff Livingston

You'd win your bet Jeff
There are bad laws regarding the licenses / regulations of business that interfere with their proper role as competitive and responsible providers of goods and services, and large corporations are well known for lobbying congress toward regulations and state actions that would benefit them at the expense of competitors via the use of the states force.

No one can rule anyone else if they simply offer voluntary transactions. Corporate rule is an old and vaccuous socialist catchcry. There is vast confusion about the differences between the almost imaginary pro-corporate capitalist materialist and the true defenders of free markets and liberty.

It reminds me of the analogy of one who gives to the beggar out of compassion, mistaking all those that do not as doing so out of greed and lack of compassion, not recognizing that some of those who do not give to the beggar, do so with the knowledge that it actually enslaves the beggar further, by giving him further incentive to rely on his begging ways.

 

[Chris]

i don't think making drugs legal is the answer either.
in my area crimes are commited by the drugs users as well as the drug dealers.why?hooked on drugs,can't work,can't supply drug habit,need a fix.what to do?well first it starts off with them selling their stuff.when thats gone they steal their families stuff.moms jewlery,dads golf clubs,sis' bob collection,brothers custom nitti that they get $20.00 for at the local pawnshop.then family catches on and has nothing to do with them.so then they steal your stuff.first it's spare change from your car,then it's home invasion,then cornerstores and whatnot.

if you make drugs legal,when the users can no longer work because of their addiction,they will turn to crime to pay for their habit.

as i'm writing this so help me god,i just looked at the morning paper and my friends daughter is on the front page.busted for heroin.

Legalization leads to drastically lower prices, which means it is no longer a big deal to purchase necessary "meds." Addicts can hold down jobs and lead normal lives when their focus isn't constantly on how to obtain their next fix. If tobacco were illegal, there would be nicotine related crime. The crime is from the prohibition, not the substance.