Re: [Libertarian] Re: Purity

Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:17:48 -0700

I cannot keep still about this:  Drugs are a major technological advance of the 20th century.  They can forestall death & eliminte pain & cure disease.  Sometimes it may suggested that some potential purchaser misuse a drug.  (Some drugs lend themselves to misue more readily than others).  THERE IS NO LOGICAL ARGUMENT THAT ANY HUMAN BEING  SHOULD BE DEPRIVED OF DRUGS BECAUSE THERE IS SOMEONE WHO JUDGES THAT ADVERTISING FOR DRUGS CAN POSSIBLY BE FRAUDULENT.  Advertising for anything can be fraudulent.

Eric Rathbone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
You just happened to pick the example of an anti-semite
because...hmmm...why did you pick it?

Please try harder.

Although I don't support anti-drug laws I can easily see how an
argument can be made for them.

To wit:

Drugs promise pleasure without harm and are marketed as such.
Such claims are untrue.
Therefore the claims are fraudulent.
Therefore it is not a violation of the NAP to forbid selling drugs.

I don't agree but the argument can rationally be made.


--- In [email protected], "mark robert" wrote:
>
>
> Nice strawman, but no bucket. Nowhere did I imply or hint or
> indicate that anyone not agreeing with what I say things mean is
> the moral equivalent of an anti-Semite.
>
> Let me re-word my point. The part of one's philosophy that agrees
> with drug prohibition is prejudiced and bigoted (supports
> aggression). It is easy for a libertarian to explain how drug
> prohibition is all those things (prejudice, bigotry, aggression).
> So it is your task to explain how it is not - and therefore why
> that particular libertarian principle should be
> changed/eliminated.
>
> No one here is saying principles can not be discussed, but you
> seem to be confusing the discussion of principles with their
> elimination/reduction.
>
> For example: Let's discuss Emerson's quote. It can be taken two
> ways:
> 1.) "foolish" consistency vs "wise" consistency;
> 2.) all consistency is foolish.
> If #2 is true, then technically it implodes itself. An
> assertion/statement implies a truth. A truth implies consistency.
> Kaboom! Or maybe he is just commenting on the smallness of his
> own mind. Maybe he should have said: "It is consistently true
> that anyone who claims consistency is consistently stupid." Maybe
> I should say, "typing is illogical". So let's assume Emerson is
> not stupid and #1 is true - and his quote loses any philosophical
> value for this discussion.
>
> -Mark
>
>
>
> ************
> {American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
> "not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
> case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
> There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
> unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
> its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
> unjust lawsuits.
> See www.fija.org
> [Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
>
> ----------------------
>
>
>
> Mark,
>
> "How does the Libertarian Party...allow..."
>
> How?
>
> Well, to begin with by recognizing that not every disagreement
> with what
> YOU say things mean does not make the dissident the moral
> equivalent of
> an anti-Semite. (No doubt you meant to say Nazi but feared being
> called
> on Godwin's Rule.)
>
> Then by recognizing that reasonable minds can differ about what
> general
> principles mean especially when applied to actual situations.
>
> Finally by understanding that no one person or clique defines
> precisely
> what any political party stands for.
>
>
>
> "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"
>
> -Ralph Waldo Emerson
>






ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



ForumWebSiteAt  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian



SPONSORED LINKS
Libertarian English language Political parties
Online dictionary American politics

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



Reply via email to