Rampant crime, and LENIENT JUDGES

[Dixon Cannon]

Response (ability)....

Ok, I see your side of the point. I just don't necessarily agree with it......Yup, I could go on, but I'll stop here because I think you get what I'm trying to say. I just don't believe that there are no victimless crimes. In the grand scheme of anything illegal or bad, someone usually ends up a victim in one way or another.

Daisy, everything you mention here is already happening in our society, despite our government's WAR on these preceived crimes. All of the unwed mothers, STD's, foster children, drive-by shootings, turf wars, ad nauseum are going on in our neighborhoods right now, at ever increasing levels, in spite of the best efforts of the 'Czars' that pontificate about enforcement.

I'm about personal responsibility and the current system does not promote that. Thus, we have vast segments of our society, in practically every community in this country that take no responsibility for their actions simply because they've never learned how. They have never learned.

No Libertarian expects that legalization of freedom will instantly return us to a peaceful Utopia. What it will do is foster a climate of self-responsibility and 'caveat emptor' that gradually (from generation to generation) will allow people to learn that they, themselves must take responsibility for their lives and their impact on society.

This is not difficult to understand for Golden Era advocates. Back in the 'olden days' when there were far fewer laws and regulations and people naturally took responsibility for themselves and for their children, they didn't have to endure the kind of rampant and incessant violence and anti-social behavior that we tend to take for granted today.

If all these laws and regulations and prosecutions and wars-on-this, and wars-on-that actually, really worked, we wouldn't be discussing the kinds of thing we're discussing here.

I've said it before; most people want Freedom, they just don't want the things that make for freedom!

Respectfully,
Dixon Cannon

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Daisy, everything you mention here is already happening in our society, despite our government's WAR on these preceived crimes. All of the unwed mothers, STD's, foster children, drive-by shootings, turf wars, ad nauseum are going on in our neighborhoods right now, at ever increasing levels, in spite of the best efforts of the 'Czars' that pontificate about enforcement.

I'm about personal responsibility and the current system does not promote that. Thus, we have vast segments of our society, in practically every community in this country that take no responsibility for their actions simply because they've never learned how. They have never learned.

Ive said it before; most people want Freedom, they just don't want the things that make for freedom!

Respectfully,
Dixon Cannon

I guess maybe I wasn't getting my point across. Believe me, I am all for personal responsibility. That is what I was attempting to advocate in my example of how I take care of my own medical expenses. I agree with you completely on your view of personal responsibility. Unfortunately, and this is just my opinion, there aren't responsible people out there anymore. They are taking there freedoms to a new extreme, that could possibly affect the lives of many innocent people around them Once again this is just my take, but I think this is why the government has had to step in. What was once meant as regulations to be followed by those "law abiding citizens" that I've talked about, have now been taken advantage of by too many people leading to higher forms of enforcement, hence the government stepping in. I would love to live in a nation that exuded responsibility, a nation that left such life altering decisions such as heavy drug use to the person. But, most people aren't responsible to live in such a nation, and our government has to step in to maintain an order that I believe would get out of control otherwise. Once again, just my opinion. There are so many different sides to this cause, it is really difficult to educate oneself on all of them and make a truly informed decision on where you, and only you, stand.

 

[Andykev]

Here Here!

Yikes this thread took a wild turn. WOW. I was talking about CRIMINALS who willfully BREAK THE LAW WITH VIOLENCE and the lenient Judges who allow them to walk the street, comitting new crimes.

This has been a very interesting thread..covering many points of view.

The Original Link that I posted with this thread..did anyone really listen to it?

 

[Lincsong]

Yikes this thread took a wild turn. WOW. I was talking about CRIMINALS who willfully BREAK THE LAW WITH VIOLENCE and the lenient Judges who allow them to walk the street, comitting new crimes.

This has been a very interesting thread..covering many points of view.

The Original Link that I posted with this thread..did anyone really listen to it?

I forgot it. I'll have to go back and listen.[huh]

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Oh, oh....I've heard that before!

....I think this is why the government has had to step in. What was once meant as regulations to be followed by those "law abiding citizens" that I've talked about, have now been taken advantage of by too many people leading to higher forms of enforcement, hence the government stepping in. I would love to live in a nation that exuded responsibility, a nation that left such life altering decisions such as heavy drug use to the person. But, most people aren't responsible to live in such a nation, and our government has to step in to maintain an order that I believe would get out of control otherwise..

I had heard something similar somewhere, just as an opinion, and I went back and Googled it. Sure enough, others have had similar opinions in the past. They somehow always seem to lead to the same old path....

"The streets in our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and our Republic is in danger -- yes, danger from within and without. We need law and order. Without law and order, our nation cannot survive." -purported author, a Herr Hitler, auf Munchen Stadt

Thus, my exact reason for being a Libertarian! The alternative has proven to being frightening one too many times.

Respectfully,
Dixon Cannon

 

[carebear]

But, most people aren't responsible to live in such a nation, and our government has to step in to maintain an order that I believe would get out of control otherwise.

Daisy,

You have the cause and effect wrong. People aren't growing "less responsible" than in the past and thus now need government to take care of them. Government started "taking care of people" and TAUGHT them to be less responsible and the problem became self-perpetuating and growing.

Think about it, we had that same open nation you describe not that long ago with fewer laws and fewer problems than today. Thus, implicit in your statement is the idea that (some) people now are lesser people (responsibility/intelligence/self-control) than others today or even their own ancestors. That kind of thought, taken to a logical conclusion, is what led to the eugenics movement in this country and certain well-known others.

Coke and heroin (laudanum) were available from doctors and pharmacies over the counter or in illegal dens (opium dens) for decades.

Until, that is, (and for example) "we" decided addiction was a "disease" which needed government intervention (and laws to coerce addicts under the State's wing) and not a choice/responsibility of an individual who should muddle through themself, be taken care of by friends/family or outside private charity or, in the end, sadly suffer the natural consequences of their choices.

In reality the true Constitutional and common law position is that you are free to die in the gutter alone (unless saved by a non-government actor) but will definitely go to jail for mugging to get your fix. Your rights end where they violently and directly violate mine.

Once personal decisions which do not inherently interfere with the rights of others are deemed by the well-meaning to be "societal problems" the camel's nose of government interference in everyone's daily life is well into the tent. More laws are then needed to compel obedience to "the greater good".

It happened with drugs, with alcohol, with guns, with speech (hate speech), with smoking, and soon with fast food. For our own good.

Ironically, all would be better off if we, and not government, were responsible for ourselves.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Daisy,

You have the cause and effect wrong. Ironically, all would be better off if we, and not government, were responsible for ourselves.

CB, well stated and well taken!! :eusa_clap

 

[deanglen]

Yikes this thread took a wild turn. WOW. I was talking about CRIMINALS who willfully BREAK THE LAW WITH VIOLENCE and the lenient Judges who allow them to walk the street, comitting new crimes.

This has been a very interesting thread..covering many points of view.

The Original Link that I posted with this thread..did anyone really listen to it?

I did. I think this thread went in the direction it has because not many could take issue with your point, Andykev, so they used your post as an inspiration. It has been like an avalanche started by a rifle shot. And that's okay!


dean

 

[Hemingway Jones]

I had heard something similar somewhere, just as an opinion, and I went back and Googled it....
Respectfully,
Dixon Cannon

Daisy,
...Thus, implicit in your statement is the idea that (some) people now are lesser people (responsibility/intelligence/self-control) than others today or even their own ancestors. That kind of thought, taken to a logical conclusion, is what led to the eugenics movement in this country and certain well-known others.

Great reasoning there, fellows; you disagree with someone, so, by implication, you call them a Nazi, which is so far beyond any implication to what she was saying.
It's an argument of the absurd with you two.
I am underwhelmed.

 

[carebear]

Great reasoning there, fellows; you disagree with someone, so, by implication, you call them a Nazi, which is so far beyond any implication to what she was saying. And you have the nerve to sign it "respectfully."
It's an argument of the absurd with you two.
I am underwhelmed.

I take offense to that Hemingway and would like, but do not expect, an apology.

If you can direct me to the portion of what I wrote that actually calls Daisy a Nazi, I'd appreciate it and I will apologize to her. But I didn't.

The idea that there are some who somehow "can't handle personal responsibility for their actions" is exactly what led to the incarceration of the mentally disturbed and to the forced sterilization of the "incompetent and handicapped" in this country and others in the first part of this century. All of whom were not evil nationalists but all who claimed to be operating for the overall "good of mankind".

It is the exact same thinking that proposes the lowering of standards in schools because some, by reason of birth (always explained as "culture" but patently race-based) cannot compete on the same playing field as those in the majority (again race is usually carefully danced around). Thus condemning members of those "cultures" to the permanant underclass.

I was attempting to demonstrate the necessary end result of the chain of reasoning she was using. Because many people of good will, like Daisy, when they start thinking of some as "needing" the help of others, overlook the danger of that kind of thought because their intentions are good.

It's logic, not vilification. I have too much regard for reason to trample it that way or to attempt to use emotion to win an argument in which history demonstrates I am absolutely correct.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

HJ, perhaps you misread!

Great reasoning there, fellows; you disagree with someone, so, by implication, you call them a Nazi, which is so far beyond any implication to what she was saying.
It's an argument of the absurd with you two.
I am underwhelmed.

Where does it even use the word Nazi or imply that someone is a Nazi at all. That's rather a knee-jerk response, isn't it? Although I didn't use the term in my post, I substitute the word 'Statist'; someone who believes in the power of the State to regulate and control human action. The quote that I had heard and then located by searching the internet is allegedly by someone who most certainly was a 'Statist' and whose opinions led to the most vicious form of Statism. They might just as easlily have been said by a Marxist-Leninist or a Maoist, ir the Taliban for that matter.

One needn't imply that there is name calling where there obviously is none. Calls for government involvement in the private lives and private actions of consenting adults, are what they are. I just took the time to point out that others have held similar Statist opinions that have led to disastrous consequences. That is the nature of Statism.

-dixon cannon

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Fellows, it's self-evident. These sorts of polemics are so out of bounds, especially considering the context and the individual. The only person deserving of an apology in this transaction is Ms. Buchanan. You can both dance around it all that you want, but when you say that someone's reasoning leads to eugenics or that the last time you heard something said that was similar to what she said, it was by Hitler; then what do you expect?

You can dance up to a rhetorical line, place a toe beyond it, then waltz away all you want claiming innocence, but as long as I see something like this going on, I am going to say something.

 

[Nathan Flowers]

.

That's enough for now, gentlemen. Let's move to another topic.