It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

the Republican-Democrat-Libertarian Pros and cons

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   


Heres an idea. The fed's could stop the war on drugs, then let the states decide what they want to do. The people of each state could vote on it. At least you don't have this overbearing, oppressive federal government breathing down the states necks and putting the different ideologies of different states on a lesser level.



That would be a great way to test the water so to speak




posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I think it would be much more effective to fix the system we already have. It has the potential to do good. Besides, the American people will not allow the legalization of much more than pot at this point.

I do not mind the legalization of pot so much, it's the other drugs.



posted on Mar, 6 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   
beside maybe coc aine and heroine, most other currently illegal drugs aren't very addictive in nature, especially psychedelics...mushrooms, peyote, mescaline, marijuana, lsd, mdma, dmt, all not addictive physically and quite a few are quite hard to abuse but we still have thousands of people in jail for using them recreationally. people can use illegal drugs recreationally, just like everyone who drinks isn't an alcoholic. the people with addictive personalities will continue to abuse whatever, and in that context i feel that an alcoholic is no better for society than a heroine junkie or a crackhead, their only benefit is alcohol is legal, cheap and easy to find so they don't get busted robbing a candy store to support their habit...make alcohol illegal in this country again today and watch the crime rate skyrocket.

in addition, believe it or not but there are a lot of functioning alcoholics, heroine junkies, potheads, etc. currently, no one knows just how many people in this country use illegal drugs, how many out of those function normally in society...what we seem to see the most are the worst case scenarios and horror stories on tv. we don't often hear about the man married with 3 kids who's been using heroine for 30 years and functioning just fine until his longtime dealer goes to jail and he gets caught on the street trying to cop his dope.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 05:58 PM
link   
bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla


We could go around and around on this all day, which we very well have.

But no one can tell you that life would be better with the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

1) It's never been tried, so any results would be conjecture at best.

2) We would trade one problem for another.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Agreed, the only decent example we have to look at is the Netherlands.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 10:54 PM
link   
You may think you're offering new solutions but you'e not. Your views are libertarian/socialist. you offer to legalize victimless crimes but you also offer to tax the product and give the money to the poor in order to educate themselves which in the end you would hope to bring about a classless society. in theory classless societies are a good thing but in reality they won't work. the survival of man depends on the selfishness of man to want to aquire enough riches for his and his family's security. in the process he creates other opportunities, through employment, for another man to provide for his own family's security.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   


Your views are libertarian/socialist. you offer to legalize victimless crimes but you also offer to tax the product and give the money to the poor in order to educate themselves which in the end you would hope to bring about a classless society.


Education is solcialist? Where in this did I mention a classless society? Where did I say we where going to give it to the poor? I said it COULD be taxed and used in the urban and rural schools. There will always be classes of people if fort no other reason than some are too lazy to want to advance. Libertarianism is about as far from socialism as you can get try going to the site and looking at what they have to say.

Saying Libertarianism is the same as socialism just shows that you do not have a clue what it is about.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   


in theory classless societies are a good thing but in reality they won't work. the survival of man depends on the selfishness of man to want to aquire enough riches for his and his family's security. in the process he creates other opportunities, through employment, for another man to provide for his own family's security



This is the whole IDEA behind Libertarianism go to the site and show me where they preach about a classless society, you wont finds it. You really should check the facts before you talk about something you have no Idea about.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla


We could go around and around on this all day, which we very well have.

But no one can tell you that life would be better with the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

1) It's never been tried, so any results would be conjecture at best.

2) We would trade one problem for another.


then i guess no one can say it'd be worse than either. what we're currently doing is not working, change is needed.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 10:15 AM
link   


then i guess no one can say it'd be worse than either. what we're currently doing is not working, change is needed.


In more ways than one.

We need to change our whole outlook.


The big two have everyone scared of true freedom, the next few years will see whither we remain free or become slaves hiding in fear from our freedom



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Perhaps, but how do you construct law to change social culture or outlook?

You can, but it takes a long intensive battle that hardly seems worth it.

Our best bet, would be to fix the systems we have now, and I only say this because it would be the most cost effeciant and the least time and growing pains.

Human freedoms will always be limited. There has never been a government that has not limited them.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   


Our best bet, would be to fix the systems we have now, and I only say this because it would be the most cost effeciant and the least time and growing pains.


Do you honestly think the Republicans OR the Democrats are going to change ANYTHING? It is in BOTH or there intrests to maintain the status quo. There only intrest in the voters is in making them believe that the will change things.

Has it happened?

As for limiting freedoms why does a truely free nation scare so many people? Are people that comfortable being protected from themselves?

Was it Thomas Jefferson that said the government that governs best governs least? The last thing I need is someone taking half my paycheck and half of my freedom "for my own good"

Has America feel so far that we are afraid of freedom? Afraid to stand or fall by our own merits and allow our neighbor the same?

Are we willing to give up most of our rights just to make sure our neighbor doesnt smoke a joint or have sex with his buddy?

And how is voting a third party in to power not working whithin the system? When did the big two become the only parties allowed?

EVERYTHING and EVERYONE works to there own best interest and the big two are no different.

And their best interest is making sure people think that there is only TWO choices when in reality there are several.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 12:18 PM
link   
It is not that we are afraid of freedom.

But look at what "true" freedom entails.

No restrictions, no limitations, no moral meter aside from personal ones, and no clear line between right and wrong.

True freedom can not happen because it would entail others having theirs thrown away by the "freedom" of others.

The idea is to excersize the most personal freedoms into the law, while maintaining social stability.

It is a fine line, and I think what you propose would delve us into dangerous waters not so easily reversed.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   


True freedom can not happen because it would entail others having theirs thrown away by the "freedom" of others.


I dont quite understand this.


As I have stated many times and as the party states your freedom would end where it started interfering with someone elses.

No one is proposing that you would be free to steal or kill or rape. Just like we have freedom of religion (which was a "dangerous" idea at the time) but that does not mean you can have a human sacrafice.


Allowing people to smake a joint or marry the adult of there choice or pay for sex hardly means running wild in the streets killing and raping in a drug crazed frenzy.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   


No restrictions, no limitations, no moral meter aside from personal ones, and no clear line between right and wrong.



This is not what I said. What I am saying is that just because the religious right think it is best for us all doesnt make it so.

And isnt that what your objections boil down to?

This has been tried in other countries and it does work.

[Edited on 9-3-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Yes, I'm sure it does. But again, you can not use another country as a device to explain how it would work here.

America is a very different country than them, and as I said, you would be hard pressed to create law to change social belief.

The ideas you propose remove discipline, and like I explained, a lock only keeps an honest man honest.

Sure, you guys push personal responcibility, but look at the current problems we have with drinking. Would they not be added to with the addition of more intoxicating substances? I tend to think they would.

If this had been proposed and passed 100 years ago, the very society we live in today would be vastly different, but it was not, and socially it just can not happen over night if at all.

The growing pains alone will keep this from happening for a long time if ever.



posted on Mar, 10 2004 @ 07:40 AM
link   


If this had been proposed and passed 100 years ago, the very society we live in today would be vastly different, but it was not, and socially it just can not happen over night if at all.


Slightly over a hundred years ago most of this with the sole exception of gay marriages WAS legal.

Prostitution was either legal or ignored almost everywhere.

They sold coc aine and morphine in first aid kits!

Opium was openly smoked in "dens".

Pot was sold as a cure for womens monthly "problems" (I know ity works for my wife....LOL)

The world did not come to an end then and wont come to an end today.

All this can be found in history books if you dont believe me


[Edited on 10-3-2004 by Amuk]

[Edited on 10-3-2004 by Amuk]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join