191–200 of 293 posts
Edit: this is with at least three years of input from user rayiner, there is literally no fucking way that you cannot read this comment history from the time the account was created to now and not see that this is a shill for the narrative that the government wants you to hear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You understand that this is the very reason the US is a Republic not a Democracy, and has safe guards to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
Maybe maybe not. Democracy must mean that society has some right to shape how people will behave within it, and sometimes that imposes an affirmative burden on people to behave a certain way (e.g. mandatory schooling). That's not all tyranny.
>“ It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” -James Madison Federalist Papers No 51
The Politicians of Our Nation Throw Around the Word Democracy to make the low information plebs feel as though the power rests with them, it is a charade. I don't mind the down votes if it means some of the users on the site have a better understanding of US civics.
Edit: By the way your example of Mandatory Schooling could not be further from an example of a Democracy. Did you or the rest of the citizens of the US ever have a vote on that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But most people would pick the will of the majority making some bad decisions than the absolute dictatorship that would be needed to enforce a highly subjective list of human rights.
You understand that this is the very reason the US is a Republic not a Democracy, and has safe guards to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You understand that this is the very reason the US is a Republic not a Democracy, and has safe guards to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
Technically I believe we are a Democratic Republic, as we directly vote on laws within our states. Legal Marijuana, for instance, was chosen by the Citizens of my state, Oregon; not by elected politicians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_republic
The citizens of Oregon do get to vote on Initiatives and Referendums, that is something which is relatively new to the state 1908, and not the way states outside of the Western part of the country operate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy_in_Oregon ^^ This page has a nice map showing other states as well.
In many of the blue states on the map constitutional amendments for the state can be proposed and voted on but the majority of laws are simply written by the legislature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Drug use has an external impact on the families, friends, employers, and coworkers of those using drugs. It's not illegal for me to be a sober (or drunk) asshole. Nor is it illegal for me to be sober (or drunk) and just decide not to go to work, consequences be damned. People are allowed to get drunk legally, despite the statistically increased propensity for violence, douchebaggery, etc. What makes alcohol "good"…
I'm not making any argument why drug use should be illegal. I'm making an argument for why the public should be entitled to decide whether drug use is legal or illegal. I also think, given your examples, the public should also be entitled to decide whether alcohol should be illegal.
You're making an argument for which anything could be illegal. The public could develop an irrational prejudice against people wearing purple. Then you could make all of those statements about that. Is it the public's right to ban purple clothing? Do we still have freedom simply because there is more than one other color? This may seem facetious but it's not that far from tattoos and piercings. You're almost suggesting that there shouldn't be inalienable rights. I understand that in "reality" there ultimately aren't but I hadn't realized our society was so ready to abandon the ideal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prohibition has caused more harm than good, lack of gun control has caused more harm than good, outlawing encryption would cause more harm than good. There is nothing logically inconsistent about holding these views.
I think the claim is that these views aren't held for utilitarian reasons, rather they are held for ideological reasons (ie freedom). In fact, if we want a pure utilitarian viewpoint we ma find the East Asian model where you get shot for selling drugs to yield the most quantifiable value.
We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course…
Laying it all on Nixon does not explain "Reefer Madness" (1936) nor every other country that criminalizes drugs with zeal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And as long as we live in a democracy, they're entitled to structure their society as they see fit. I strongly disagree. There are certain human rights that should not be able to be voted away in a democracy. I believe that the right to modulate our own minds as we see fit belongs in this category.
People aren't "modulating their minds" in isolation. Drug use has an external impact on the families, friends, employers, and coworkers of those using drugs. Drug use affects the ability of drug users to abide by social norms imposed upon everyone. In a developed nation with a safety net, drug use might even implicate society's need to rescue those who can't work or fall ill from drug use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Production cost is a primary factor in pricing in industries having the characteristic of "perfect competition". For example, in the farming industry, the price of wheat is primarily determined by production cost, while influenced by other factors. You can read about characteristics associated with perfect competition on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition#Basic_stru... If drug use and drug-m…
Wheat is not a good comparison because it's mostly not consumer facing. Consumers care for more things in their purchases than just the raw good. Your alcohol example IS a good example. Consumers aren't just buying a beverage that intoxicates them that doesn't taste terrible. They pay a premium for brand, image, and to a large extent placebo quality. The cost of manufacturing for most alcoholic beverages has little t…
(Yes, brands have an influence, people buy Vertu phones, but Walmart has a lot more customers.)