Political Leanings...

[lisagurl]

My answer might be the observer.

A lowlife is not someone who uses drugs. A lowlife is someone that does not contribute to good of society. Being strung out means someone who does not have the ability to benefit mankind. People that are habitually strung out use methods that are not ethical to prolong their misery.

[tekla]

The notion that drugs = addiction is tragically wrong.  They are referred to as 'recreational drugs' for a reason, most of the people who use them, only use them on occasion.  Like drinking, sure there are lowlife bars, filled with drunks, but there are very high class nightclubs, bars and cafes that serve adult beverages also.  Going out to have a drink in SF does not mean you wind up at the 61 Club at the corner of Turk and Taylor, you could be going to the Cliff House, or the Top of the Mark, or the Starlight Club just as well.

[Britney_413]

Nobody is required to contribute anything to society. However, I think it is reasonable to expect that people don't detract or take from society either. Drugs are another example of where the government believes it should be interfering with and controlling people's private lives. As far as I'm concerned, people are sovereign individuals and if they want to kill themselves on heroin then that is fine. I hate to see it happen but as long as they aren't using my tax dollars to further their habit, aren't driving intoxicated, or committing crimes, then they should have the right to do what they want. Treat all drugs like alcohol and cigarettes: tax it and regulate it.

I don't believe that if drugs were legal tomorrow that suddenly everyone would be buying them. People who don't normally do drugs would not likely be interested. At the same time people who are using drugs may actually be less interested in them if they were legal due to the "reverse psychology" aspect of them currently being illegal. Regardless, it is not the government's job to tell adults what they can and cannot put in their bodies.

[Miniar]

frankly, I despise drug addicts.

Addiction is a disease. No one chooses to become an addict.
Hating drug addicts for their addiction makes about as much sense as hating a person with AIDS for having that.

[lisagurl]

Nobody is required to contribute anything to society

On the contrary, freedom and liberty come with responsibilities. Perhaps there is not laws other than things like jury duty but how you are treated by society depends on what you do for it. Nothing is for free.

Addiction is a disease. No one chooses to become an addict.

Addiction is a choice. Being ignorant of the effects of drugs in not an excuse. Just as having unprotected sex is not an excuse. Now there are some people who have AIDS through no fault of their own but the majority live risky lifestyles just as someone who starts to smoke. With all the information and laws it is hard to not accept some of the responsibility.

[tekla]

Yeah addiction is a strange deal, you never know until its too late.  Most of the people I've been around can do things, have a drink or two, smoke some herb, do a line, and walk away from it.  Others, that first drink, hit, line - might as well have put a gun in their mouth and pulled the trigger. 

Like a lot of things in life, your rolling those laughing bones.

[Miniar]

Addiction is a choice. Being ignorant of the effects of drugs in not an excuse. Just as having unprotected sex is not an excuse. Now there are some people who have AIDS through no fault of their own but the majority live risky lifestyles just as someone who starts to smoke. With all the information and laws it is hard to not accept some of the responsibility.

And obviously, everyone who get lung cancer from living in a smog filled city, are to blame for their own disease too.
And alcoholics who were addicted from the first beer they drank.
And people who break their legs skiing are also to blame for their injury, what with the risks being known.

Where do you draw the line?
No one chooses to break a leg skiing. Yet, people break their legs skiing quite often and so everyone who skis should know that there's a chance they could get injured doing so. Does that mean that the choice to ski is equivalent to the choice to break your own leg?

No one chooses addiction. That's a fallacy and a cruel one at that.

It's a bit like saying "Everything that happens to you is your own fault for participating in life!"

[lisagurl]

"Everything that happens to you is your own fault for participating in life!"

Everything has its probability. All rational decisions are made with the thought of probability. If one out of 10,000 people a day break a leg skiing then that is your odds. You may want to have health insurance before you go skiing.

One in 800 births is Down syndrome. The odds of having a Down syndrome baby is good enough to be tested for and perhaps abort if it happens. It is also important to have health insurance before you have unprotected sex.

Participating in life has its risks. To be aware and prepared is only logical and rational. To do things on blind faith has its consequences so accept the cost.

[finewine]

Repeated exposure is required to foster addiction/dependence in the majority of cases.

Substance Use and Dependence Following First Time Use

[Britney_413]

This is where I am generally a conservative. I believe strongly in "personal responsibility." Addiction may not be a choice as chemicals can affect different people's bodies differently. However, it IS a choice when it comes down to what one decides to do about the addiction. Liberal thinking tends to be focused on the group mentality where people are more or less products of their environment and instead of blaming the individual for his or her failures, excuses are given such as "he came from a bad home."

Not everyone is dealt the same lucky cards but everyone gets to choose how well they play the hand they are dealt. I guess when it comes to substances I am a bit of a lucky one. I have tried just about every drug and never had negative effects from them other than maybe a bit of wasted time and money. The same can be said for non-drug activities such as watching TV or shopping. Moderation is the key. You are responsible for your choices, not your neighbor, family, or government. If you believe that you can't stop doing something (addiction) there are lots of private and government programs that will help you. Regardless, you are responsible for taking that step.

I believe that drugs and many other things (gambling, firearms, etc.) should be legal even if these things are seen as somewhat harmful. It is YOUR job to decide what is right for you--not the job of the government to "save you from yourself." I don't believe in forced safety. If you screw up your life, that is your problem and again there are resources to help you wake up and smell the coffee. If you screw up someone else's life (i.e. kill someone in a drunk driving accident) then we already have laws to put an end to that for awhile.

Another area where I guess I'm conservative is I don't believe a person is required to "contribute to society." I believe people should contribute but there is a large difference between what someone should and should not do and what they are required to do or not do. As long as someone is not draining society, they aren't really required to contribute either. Extreme liberal thinking means that all people are to come together, work together, build together and opting out isn't really an option. People who don't work and sit around all day may not appear to be contributing to society but every time they purchase something, 8% of their order goes to sales tax which is supposed to contribute to projects that benefit everyone.

Without going on further, my "political leanings" generally come down to "do whatever you please, contribute what you will, as long as you harm none." I guess it is somewhat libertarian.

[lisagurl]

If you screw up your life, that is your problem and again there are resources to help you wake up and smell the coffee. If you screw up someone else's life (i.e. kill someone in a drunk driving accident) then we already have laws to put an end to that for awhile.

Then it is too late as an Innocent person is killed for no reason of their own.

People that do not contribute do not have the money to buy something and pay tax. Not to mention those drug deals and sex deals that are not paying income tax and FICA. Federal offenses.

It is no consolation to the dead person if the one who did it spends their life in jail.

[tekla]

I don't believe in forced safety.

Oh sure you do.  Otherwise there would be no speed limits, after all, don't I have the right to drive as fast as the car will let me?  Product safety?  Why bother?  You ate the tainted food, that was your choice.  You could have choose to eat something else.  You could have got it tested on your own if you were not sure. Why bother to test everything for everyone?  What a nanny idea. Why have liability laws at all, after all, things happen, so they happened to you.  Tough.

If guns only killed the people who were owning them, or carrying them, it might be a different deal, but such laws are written to protect everyone else from the fool who thinks they need to pack heat and pop off a few caps every time they feel a threat coming on.

And Lisa is right about the person being in jail being little comfort to the dead person, or to their family either.

[Britney_413]

Then it is too late as an Innocent person is killed for no reason of their own.

People that do not contribute do not have the money to buy something and pay tax. Not to mention those drug deals and sex deals that are not paying income tax and FICA. Federal offenses.

It is no consolation to the dead person if the one who did it spends their life in jail.

This is why I believe that drugs and prostitution should be legal. The government can then regulate them and tax them. Of course, I don't believe in income tax for individuals either. Sales tax is an anonymous tax keeping the government out of one's business. Instead of having a 12% income tax on my pay check and an 8% tax on what I buy, get rid of the income tax and instead have a 20% sales tax. It is anonymous and you pay one tax, not a double tax where you are taxed with what you make followed by again with what you spend it on. Drugs would be bought and sold with a sales tax associated. Prostitutes would contribute tax because everytime they (or their clients) buy clothes, makeup, or whatever else, a percentage goes back in the tax pool. They could also require a service tax similar to restaurants. Just like a $20 meal would add $1.60 in tax to the bill, a prostitute charging $100 for a service would have to add an $8 fee to it. If this person is operating as an individual, no income tax and no government intrusion. If they run it as a corporation then it can be understood that if they make a net profit part of that is taxed.

I don't have a problem if someone is not contributing to society as long as they aren't taking away from society either. You have the freedom to be to yourself, live off of a pot of gold, and not really buy anything other than bare necessities. As long as you aren't going around committing crimes, the government should stay out of it.

As to innocent people being killed that is sad, but I don't believe in trading freedom for security. We could have a society where everyone's every move was so closely monitored and controlled that it would be very rare for someone to be killed by another. Unfortunately, 300 million people's freedoms would be sacrificed because of a mere fraction of a percent who would commit crimes. Rather than the government policing people's moves excessively before they even break the law which is essentially "thought crime," they simply need to be tough on crime. An example would be with guns. Having a gun in one's home could mean that at some future date they would kill someone with it but no one can prove that they would do something like that. They may just be using it for home defense, hunting, or target practice. Either way, the government should not be assuming people's actions for them unless there is strong probable cause which requires at least some type of evidence that a crime is about to be committed (i.e. the person owns a gun and has made threats to kill congressmen). However, if the person does use the gun illegally at some future date to commit murder, then you lock them away and throw away the key or you execute them. That won't bring the innocent person back but again I don't believe millions of people should be trading their freedoms over the actions of a few for a false sense of security.

Post Merge: August 05, 2009, 02:13:13 AM

I don't believe in forced safety.

Oh sure you do.  Otherwise there would be no speed limits, after all, don't I have the right to drive as fast as the car will let me?  Product safety?  Why bother?  You ate the tainted food, that was your choice.  You could have choose to eat something else.  You could have got it tested on your own if you were not sure. Why bother to test everything for everyone?  What a nanny idea. Why have liability laws at all, after all, things happen, so they happened to you.  Tough.

If guns only killed the people who were owning them, or carrying them, it might be a different deal, but such laws are written to protect everyone else from the fool who thinks they need to pack heat and pop off a few caps every time they feel a threat coming on.

And Lisa is right about the person being in jail being little comfort to the dead person, or to their family either.

I would appreciate it if you would actually respond to my points without taking them out of context. Out-of-context quoting distorts what I am saying. Anybody could twist anything anybody said by merely grabbing quotes out of a book but if you want to understand the full meaning of what they are saying, you need to read it in entirety. It is a common tactic of media to do this to people to deliberately smear people's reputations. I'm hoping that discussion boards such as these can rise above the level of prime time TV tactics.

Here is the out of context snippet you based your response on:

I don't believe in forced safety.

Here is the actual material in context:

It is YOUR job to decide what is right for you--not the job of the government to "save you from yourself." I don't believe in forced safety.

It is clear here that I am talking about forced safety against individuals to protect them from harming themselves. Your response is about safety so people don't harm each other. That was covered in this quote:

If you screw up someone else's life (i.e. kill someone in a drunk driving accident) then we already have laws to put an end to that for awhile.

Oh sure you do.  Otherwise there would be no speed limits, after all, don't I have the right to drive as fast as the car will let me?  Product safety?  Why bother?  You ate the tainted food, that was your choice.  You could have choose to eat something else.  You could have got it tested on your own if you were not sure. Why bother to test everything for everyone?  What a nanny idea. Why have liability laws at all, after all, things happen, so they happened to you.  Tough.

You are referring to laws regulating safety between individuals or between corporations and the public. That is different than regulating safety against yourself. If you choose to plant your own garden, bake your own cookies, and only you or your family are eating them, no safety mandates from the government are needed. If you are going into business and selling these to the public where thousands of people are impacted, then regulation should take place. Same with cars. If you own a huge lot with acres of land, since it is your private property you can drive your car all you want at any speed you want and if you crash it that is your problem. If you decide to take your car out onto public roads where thousands of other cars are, then obviously regulation should take place. That's the key difference.

If guns only killed the people who were owning them, or carrying them, it might be a different deal, but such laws are written to protect everyone else from the fool who thinks they need to pack heat and pop off a few caps every time they feel a threat coming on.

This is a similar example to the above. I support regulation requiring safe handling and safe storage which we already have in many states. I don't support regulation that is based on "thought crime" where you have to practically have to sleep with the governor to even own a gun. Arizona for the most part has these laws along the lines I support. You can't carry a gun in a dangerous manner (i.e. waving it around or pointing it at people) and it is illegal to discharge firearms except in far off-road areas, regulated hunting grounds and ranges. Shooting someone when it is not self-defense is illegal as well. At the same time, no permit is required to carry a gun in public as long as the gun is visible and carried in a safe manner (i.e. a holster) and no registration is required to keep guns in the home. Owing and carrying guns in no way proves that the individual will misuse them or plans on doing so and the government should not be making decisions for people based on what they might do vs. what they are doing. The laws against murder and manslaughter work fairly well. We don't have bodies piling up on the streets everywhere. Unfortunately, there is always something tragic here or there that happens to someone but millions of people's freedoms should not be sacrificed because of a tiny fraction of incidents.

It really comes down to what you support more: freedom or security. I'd rather have people generally be allowed to do what they please with a few unfortunate tragedies than the masses turned into robots tucked safely into their beds at night.

[tekla]

Usually when fools take themselves out, they take others out with them.

And your wrong about gun laws, they vary from state to state, and are often different within the state as many urban areas have stricter controls.

The laws against murder and manslaughter work fairly well. We don't have bodies piling up on the streets everywhere. Unfortunately, there is always something tragic here or there that happens to someone but millions of people's freedoms should not be sacrificed because of a tiny fraction of incidents.

That's funny.  I'm cracking up.  Have you ever looked at the rates of gun deaths and shootings in the US vs. any other industrial nation?  Our murder/homicide rates vs. oh say Germany or France, or England.  We have a blood bath going on in this country, year in and year out, and out of those 30K deaths, about a steady 40% year in and year out are homicides.  Or, around 12K, vs. other industrial nations where such deaths are not in the tens of thousands, not in the thousands, not even in the hundreds, but in double and single digits.

[cindianna_jones]

Of course, I don't believe in income tax for individuals either. Sales tax is an anonymous tax keeping the government out of one's business. Instead of having a 12% income tax on my pay check and an 8% tax on what I buy, get rid of the income tax and instead have a 20% sales tax. It is anonymous and you pay one tax, not a double tax where you are taxed with what you make followed by again with what you spend it on.

On the surface, this sounds fair but it is not.  Let's suppose that I make $100,000 a year and you make $75,000 a year.  We will both spend about the same amount in food, gasoline, and most other items. Who gets the wrong end of that stick?  Now, assuming I make $100,000 and someone else is making a million.  Sure, they will spend more on food and clothing..... but ten times more?  Nope.

Additionally, if you have money, the things you buy and sell are taxed at extraordinarily low rates.  For example, if you buy a security, you pay nothing in sales tax.  And if you sell it under capital gains, you only pay 15 percent of the profit. 

So what we have with flat sales tax is that it is fair only if everything is taxed at the same rate. That would include real estatee and securities. Try getting that one through congress.

There really is no "fair" way to tax people.  There's always some little thing that doesn't seem fair to somebody else.  If you get a tax increase... then it's unfair.

I actually favor direct taxation to pay the bills.  So, we take the amount we spend every year, divide that by the number of everyone in the country, and assess that to each person.  So if you have a brood of kids, you pay more.  I'd pay much less in taxes and that seems fair to me. 

Seriously, a progressive income tax, which I have paid stinging rates for most of my life, is the most equitable. I think that we actually should raise them significiantly. Capital gains taxes should also be increased.

Cindi

[finewine]

I haven't made my mind up on this issue.

What I like about a percentage is that it's inherently proportionate.  If everyone pays 10%, then the proportionate burden of contribution is the same.  This is often mentioned in "flat tax" proposals as a point of equity.

However, as Cindi points out, the price of commodities as a proportion of income is NOT relative.  Taxing higher earners at a higher rate, though, doesn't change the price:income ratio of the lower earner, it just swells government coffers from the higher earners.

What often happens then is a tangled web of cross-funding, banding, tax and relief, etc. in a (probably futile) attempt to find some kind of "median equity".

The only thing that does grate is when someone asserts that a higher earner is, by default, "luckier" and so should pay more.  I confess that I find the assertion rather offensive.   Luck had nothing to do with it.  It was hard work and intrinsic motivation, working up from entry level pay like anyone else.

Now if someone knocked on the door one morning and said "Surprise! Have a career, good salary, house and car!" then yeah, that's luck.  I don't see it happen often.

[Britney_413]

I don't believe in progressive taxes to equalize or socialize everyone's income. A flat tax does put the same burden on everyone. It is true that more of a poorer person's income will go to necessities while a richer person's income will be large enough that they have a larger cushion over their expenses. However, richer people also buy luxury items that poorer people cannot afford. Perhaps a progressive tax might make more sense only when it is applied as a sales tax, not an income tax. Stuff that everyone buys (food, clothing, etc.) could be taxed at a lower rate (7 or 8 percent) while jewelery, antiques, etc. would have a higher tax (10 or 11 percent). That is a thought and it might work better.

As to tekla's response on firearms, you still didn't accurately read what I say. Is this so freaking difficult? I clearly said the laws I was referring to were those in my home state (Arizona) and you seemed to think I was talking about laws in all states. Please read carefully.

As to other countries, research should be done to find out why the U.S. has such a high murder rate. I won't deny that easy access to guns probably plays a role but I doubt it is the only factor. I believe a bankrupt culture may also have a lot to do with it. The U.S. holds 25% of the world's inmates and has the highest prison population of any country in the world. Nearly 1 out of every 100 Americans are in jail or prison. A lot of those are non-violent crimes as well. I haven't been to Europe but it would be interesting to find out how similar or different the culture of those countries are from first-hand experience some day.

Either way, I don't believe in sacrificing freedom for security. The murder rate in the U.S. is high but it doesn't equate to a bloodbath as you describe. Iraq or Afghanistan may closer fit that description. A murder rate of 15,000 a year would mean that about 0.005% of people are murdered every year or 1 out of 20,000 people. That doesn't equate to "bodies piling up on the streets." Again, this is the classical freedom vs. security debate. People who prefer security want more government in their lives so that they can sleep comfortably at night and don't have to make their own decisions about their well-being. People who support freedom don't mind life having its risks as long as one truly gets to decide how they are going to live it.

[tekla]

Iraq and Afghanistan are war zones.  Is that really the comparison you want to make?  Cause I'll make it for you.  There are large areas of the United States that are war zones.  There have been 4 officer shootings in Oakland this year, one of them a guy with an AK took out four armed police officers, I'm not sure how I feel safer with people like that being armed.

As to other countries, research should be done to find out why the U.S. has such a high murder rate.  And its not just 'has', twas ever thus.  Its been a very violent nation from the start.  I bet people could name me more serial killers than Supreme Court justices.  (I'm pretty sure about this too, I would always poll my students when I was teaching.)  Perhaps we're just a very violent bunch.

As for Europe, they just don't have the guns, to begin with.  Nor do they have a prison-industrial complex like the US does.

[tekla]

Point taken.  But in terms of prison/jail/justice, a lot of people have a vested interest in keeping a lot of people in the 'system.'

[tekla]

Yeah, it's Obama's fault.