Sheriffs sue Colorado over legal marijuana

[Fogdog]

aren't you planning on voting for the guy who is firmly opposed to legalization though?

Fitzgerald said "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." Ginwilly must be a frickin genius! Oh wait, I should have read that part about functioning...

 

[UncleBuck]

i still have this creeping suspicion that fogdog is echelon.

unlikely, but ya know. i'm all paranoid and shit.

 

[abandonconflict]

i still have this creeping suspicion that fogdog is echelon.

unlikely, but ya know. i'm all paranoid and shit.

Nah, too smart imo. I thought he was a Londonfog sock just from the name but a bit too pedantic. He seems fresh to the forum genuinely.

I agree though, he's kinda too good to be true.

 

[Harrekin]

Nah, too smart imo. I thought he was a Londonfog sock just from the name but a bit too pedantic. He seems fresh to the forum genuinely.

I agree though, he's kinda too good to be true.

His comment about if you don't like rules and regulations you should move to Somalia...

Chesus-sock.

Next he'll be saying it should he legal to own weed but illegal to sell.

 

[overgrowem]

Its a bit too sunshine and lollipops for this forum, I know.

Not at all, in no time at all U'll get onto a hidden Rollitup truth.This site is loaded with SIMPLETONS.

 

[abandonconflict]

His comment about if you don't like rules and regulations you should move to Somalia...

Chesus-sock.

Next he'll be saying it should he legal to own weed but illegal to sell.

I doubt it. It's a common argument. But if you ever made a sock account it would be obvious due to your tiny foot size.

 

[Rob Roy]

I don't even know what a Tacit Consent argument is, but hey, if you like, go ahead and splain it to me so that you can destroy it. I might even learn something. I'll help you get started by saying "I support the Tacit Consent argument, what do you say about that!"

Philosophy. Its a great way to sharpen the mind and to get people to consider alternatives. Its just that when others were studying Kant and those other guys I was studying math, chemistry, physics and so forth. As such, I'm more facts driven than philosophy driven. Hence my arguments are rooted in what has happened and in what people do rather than how things should be. That said, we need to improve our social systems and I don't know where else to look for better ideas. So, bring your philosophical musing forward but without concrete examples of how this actually works in human society, it seems hypothetical and is lost on me. You might as well quote the bible to me. I get totally lost when people do that.

I'm not aware of an example in history where your ideas were realized in larger communities. On a smaller scale, if coercion is used to prevent gangs from controlling my street and hazarding my children then I'm all for it. Your ideas have been tried in small communal farms, but those don't usually last. A reason for this, i think, is that your ideas are not rooted in human behavior. Over time, human society has developed means other than coercion to keep us from doing each other wrong. This is all for the better but we've never been free from this element of control.

In fact, even our cousins in the primate world don't show any inclination to live in a world free of authority backed by force. The alpha male is pretty commonly a rough leader. This is why I think that your philosophy is more cerebral rather than practical.

I grew up in a pretty rough and tumble family. I love my brothers but most of the time we weren't very nice to each other. I've grown a pretty thick skin. I kind of enjoy a sharp debate and can give and take abuse. If you get aggravated and need to vent, do it with intelligence and humor and I'll be ok with it.

If human nature is to control others in abusive ways, isn't the present system aiding and abetting that kind of behavior? Coercive governments systemically endorse threats of force to peaceful and disinterested people to maintain their very existence... Isn't that like throwing gasoline on fire in order to stifle the flames?

Also, I don't completely agree that human nature is the problem. Would you run amuck harming people if there were no central authority holding a monopoly on the use of force? I wouldn't and think most people wouldn't. Do most people in wars have a personal issue with those other individuals they are killing or are they "just doing their job" ? It seems that blind obedience must be thrown out in order for a more peaceful world to occur. Kaiser Wilhelm doesn't want us to have this conversation.

Have you ever heard of the MILGRAM experiment?


Also, some of your assumption about "what would happen" are baseless. I do appreciate your ability to carry on a decent conversation though. Sorry that I assumed you were heading towards a tacit consent argument. I do think some your argument uses the same flawed assumptions though.

 

[Rob Roy]

did he contradict your view that small children can consent to being paid for sex with old men?

How small were you? I thought you had agreed to it. Are you saying the bad man forced you? Did he at least give you the candy?

That fucker!!

 

[Rob Roy]

The government took it from the aboriginal guy who's ancestors occupied it and hunted with it and now you own it.

Prior to those fucking government assholes taking it....who "owned" it? Wasn't it Ogg? Why did Ogg own it? Because he created it, using his own labor. He transformed naturally occurring things and made "private property" .

This was also done, when 50,000 years later Oggs ancestors started agriculture. They "made" a garden....they mixed their labor with natural resources and created their property. If nobody was there occupying that land first, it can then be said it is "theirs"....justly acquired too.

Also, not that I don't enjoy our back and forth, but I'm afraid for our conversation to go much further, you'll need to define what property is and who can own it etc. Or it will just end up in a silly mess of cheetoh stained fingers wagging back and forth. My offer to be reasonable still stands.

 

[abandonconflict]

Prior to those fucking government assholes taking it....who "owned" it?

The fact is, the only reason you own it is that the gov't took it from its original inhabitants.

 

[Harrekin]

I doubt it. It's a common argument. But if you ever made a sock account it would be obvious due to your tiny foot size.

My feet are fairly massive, it causes great distress and anxiety when shopping for new kicks.

 

[Fogdog]

i still have this creeping suspicion that fogdog is echelon.

unlikely, but ya know. i'm all paranoid and shit.

It's common for people to change aliases so that they can do whatever they were doing. I don't think its paranoid at all. Nobody wants to get punked by an old trick. Trying to deny an accusation like this is futile, so people can think whatever they like. I won't deny it again. But like I said, whoever (whomever?) Fogdog is, they have only ~50 posts and haven't done anything meaningful.

 

[Fogdog]

His comment about if you don't like rules and regulations you should move to Somalia...

Chesus-sock.

Next he'll be saying it should he legal to own weed but illegal to sell.

Well, this is certainly getting weird. I've somehow gotten people wondering if I'm original or somebody's second or third incarnation. FWIW, I'm just using this forum as a mild diversion from the real world. Visiting RUI is kind or like going down the rabbit hole for a visit in Wonderland. I'm not doing anything more than entertaining myself by engaging in conversation with the Mad Hatter, the Red Queen and that hugely funny caterpillar (Whooo are Yooooo?). I have no agenda. I am not important and don't warrant this kind of consideration.

Regarding what I said about Somalia. You are right in that my comment sounded like the old tired retort of "if you don't like the GOODLOUSOFA then they can just leave!". I didn't mean it that way but is not unreasonable to interpret it that way. My intent was to point out that without strong forces to keep the bad guys down then you get Somalia.

What I think is not important. But since you brought it up, I think weed and all drugs should be legal to own and sell. Addicts are going to be addicts whether its alcohol or heroin. Our (US) laws only make addicts more miserable and their situation harder to climb out of. Addiction should be treated as a medical problem and the justice system is not an appropriate way to handle it. Its OK to keep restrictions against selling these drugs to children -- this give parents a chance to intervene. Nonetheless, drug seeking kids are going to find sources for the drugs they want to take and it's at least better if the drugs they obtain are are made in clean and controlled processes. Couple that with manifold other problems created by the war on drugs and I fail to understand how anybody thinks its a good thing to continue on with. Prison guard unions in California take a different view but ginwilly already addressed this.

Ok, Harrekin, snipe away! If you could inject some good will and humor into your pot shots, I'll appreciate it.

A very merry unbirthday to you and you.

 

[Fogdog]

Nah, too smart imo. I thought he was a Londonfog sock just from the name but a bit too pedantic. He seems fresh to the forum genuinely.

I agree though, he's kinda too good to be true.

Ouch, pedantic. But guilty as charged. I'll try to do better.

 

[Harrekin]

Well, this is certainly getting weird. I've somehow gotten people wondering if I'm original or somebody's second or third incarnation. FWIW, I'm just using this forum as a mild diversion from the real world. Visiting RUI is kind or like going down the rabbit hole for a visit in Wonderland. I'm not doing anything more than entertaining myself by engaging in conversation with the Mad Hatter, the Red Queen and that hugely funny caterpillar (Whooo are Yooooo?). I have no agenda. I am not important and don't warrant this kind of consideration.

Regarding what I said about Somalia. You are right in that my comment sounded like the old tired retort of "if you don't like the GOODLOUSOFA then they can just leave!". I didn't mean it that way but is not unreasonable to interpret it that way. My intent was to point out that without strong forces to keep the bad guys down then you get Somalia.

What I think is not important. But since you brought it up, I think weed and all drugs should be legal to own and sell. Addicts are going to be addicts whether its alcohol or heroin. Our (US) laws only make addicts more miserable and their situation harder to climb out of. Addiction should be treated as a medical problem and the justice system is not an appropriate way to handle it. Its OK to keep restrictions against selling these drugs to children -- this give parents a chance to intervene. Nonetheless, drug seeking kids are going to find sources for the drugs they want to take and it's at least better if the drugs they obtain are are made in clean and controlled processes. Couple that with manifold other problems created by the war on drugs and I fail to understand how anybody thinks its a good thing to continue on with. Prison guard unions in California take a different view but ginwilly already addressed this.

Ok, Harrekin, snipe away! If you could inject some good will and humor into your pot shots, I'll appreciate it.

A very merry unbirthday to you and you.

Tl;dr

 

[overgrowem]

i still have this creeping suspicion that fogdog is echelon.

unlikely, but ya know. i'm all paranoid and shit.

I can clear up one thing for sure... He is not Red or Doer...

 

[Fogdog]

If human nature is to control others in abusive ways, isn't the present system aiding and abetting that kind of behavior? Coercive governments systemically endorse threats of force to peaceful and disinterested people to maintain their very existence... Isn't that like throwing gasoline on fire in order to stifle the flames?

Also, I don't completely agree that human nature is the problem. Would you run amuck harming people if there were no central authority holding a monopoly on the use of force? I wouldn't and think most people wouldn't. Do most people in wars have a personal issue with those other individuals they are killing or are they "just doing their job" ? It seems that blind obedience must be thrown out in order for a more peaceful world to occur. Kaiser Wilhelm doesn't want us to have this conversation.

Have you ever heard of the MILGRAM experiment?


Also, some of your assumption about "what would happen" are baseless. I do appreciate your ability to carry on a decent conversation though. Sorry that I assumed you were heading towards a tacit consent argument. I do think some your argument uses the same flawed assumptions though.

You are living in a first world country and arguing with another first world citizen. None of you ideas apply outside of our protected borders. Try telling this to MS-13.

 

[abandonconflict]

You are living in a first world country and arguing with another first world citizen. None of you ideas apply outside of our protected borders. Try telling this to MS-13.

I actually agree with most of his anti gov't rhetoric but I'm also a socialist. Your reply is great though.

 

[Harrekin]

I actually agree with most of his anti gov't rhetoric but I'm also a socialist. Your reply is great though.

You wonder why no one takes you seriously?

 

[abandonconflict]

You wonder why no one takes you seriously?

You're literally a leprechaun. I don't give a fuck what you take seriously.

Anarchocapitalism is a fairytale.