^This.
Advertisement
by Minzerland II » Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:45 pm
St Anselm of Canterbury wrote:[…]who ever heard of anything having two mothers or two fathers? (Monologion, pg. 63)
by Napkiraly » Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:46 pm
Jute wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:No, I'm saying that, fucking somehow, India has held itself together despite having basically no common identity. It is an empire without and emperor
India is held together by its democratic institutions, a bit similar to the US which is also essentially (at least) two very different cultures in one country, not counting the native ones. That's called civic nationalism.
by Questers » Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:49 pm
I'm not going to be drawn into the "why not tobacco and alcohol too!" argument because its flaws as an argument against prohibition of other drugs is well established.
by Great Minarchistan » Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:55 pm
Questers wrote:also, tfw youre on a thread full of conservatives who think drugs should be legalised.
Questers wrote:Point C:
Society has the right to impose restrictions on substances which affect public health and which destroy families. If some people have to have their lives ruined for breaking the law this will only be temporary. But nobody forced them to break the law. Drugs are a temptation. If there were practical reasons to avoid them, people wouldn't do them.
by Questers » Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:57 pm
Nope.Great Minarchistan wrote:Then I don't think you have a problem with Supernanny States prohibiting things such as sugary drinks or fast food.
"fiscal" and "social" conservatism is a dumb lie used to explain why people can hold contradictory positions.Great Minarchistan wrote:ahem I'm a fiscal conservative and therefore I defend the legalization so we can earn more monies.
by Great Minarchistan » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:04 pm
Questers wrote:Nope.Great Minarchistan wrote:Then I don't think you have a problem with Supernanny States prohibiting things such as sugary drinks or fast food.
Just like I don't have a problem with the state controlling water and air quality or what ingredients can and can not be put into food and what can or can not be marketed as medicine.
Questers wrote:"fiscal" and "social" conservatism is a dumb lie used to explain why people can hold contradictory positions.
Questers wrote:But there you are - you are a 'conservative' and a 'minarchist' so you support allowing 18 year olds to buy drugs so that the state can tax them to fund government projects. Hmmm.
by Questers » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:07 pm
Great Minarchistan wrote:Questers wrote: Nope.
Just like I don't have a problem with the state controlling water and air quality or what ingredients can and can not be put into food and what can or can not be marketed as medicine.
If you aren't against the prohibition of sugary drinks and fast food, why are you against the legalization of drugs? You know what, sugar and salt can be as tempting and harmful as drugs.
by Questers » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:08 pm
Yes, maybe if your understanding of politics comes from wikipedia.Great Minarchistan wrote:can have different meanings, and identify them by social and fiscal makes it easier to understand a position.
Great Minarchistan wrote:I never mentioned a word about taxation...
I don't believe you are a drug dealer, but if you were, that would prove my point exactly.Great Minarchistan wrote:we can earn more monies
by Great Minarchistan » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:18 pm
Questers wrote:I am actually in favour of the state regulating sugary drinks and other things also. Sugar is a massive public health crisis (I'm not sure that fast food is that bad, tbh.)
Questers wrote:The dangers of sugary drinks and fast food are completely different to narcotics and don't warrant sending people to jail for using them. This is called proportionality.
Questers wrote:Yes, maybe if your understanding of politics comes from wikipedia.
Questers wrote:I don't believe you are a drug dealer, but if you were, that would prove my point exactly.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:30 pm
Questers wrote:But there you are - you are a 'conservative' and a 'minarchist' so you support allowing 18 year olds to buy drugs so that the state can tax them to fund government projects. Hmmm.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Greater USA » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:37 pm
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:Questers wrote:But there you are - you are a 'conservative' and a 'minarchist' so you support allowing 18 year olds to buy drugs so that the state can tax them to fund government projects. Hmmm.
He probably doesn't. I support people 21 years old and older to buy drugs so that the state can tax them to fund government projects, yes.
If drugs are a lucrative commodity underground, of course that, as a currency-centric capitalist who thinks the government should tax the proceeds of drugs and regulate them, I want the state to get some of that money to go to public projects.
Any money that isn't taxed is a wasted opportunity to not get more money to fund infrastructure, social services, and so on.
by Thermodolia » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:40 pm
Greater USA wrote:Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
He probably doesn't. I support people 21 years old and older to buy drugs so that the state can tax them to fund government projects, yes.
If drugs are a lucrative commodity underground, of course that, as a currency-centric capitalist who thinks the government should tax the proceeds of drugs and regulate them, I want the state to get some of that money to go to public projects.
Any money that isn't taxed is a wasted opportunity to not get more money to fund infrastructure, social services, and so on.
The problem with hard drugs is that their presence disrupts communities and life beyond what we see with alcohol and tobacco. Criminal activity is tied to areas with illegal drug usage, and this isn't just due to smuggling being banned. Drugs have severe effects on health, economic productivity, safety, gang activity, etc.
by Great Minarchistan » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:41 pm
Thermodolia wrote:Greater USA wrote:
The problem with hard drugs is that their presence disrupts communities and life beyond what we see with alcohol and tobacco. Criminal activity is tied to areas with illegal drug usage, and this isn't just due to smuggling being banned. Drugs have severe effects on health, economic productivity, safety, gang activity, etc.
Fund hospitals and rehabilitation centers with the drug tax money
by The East Marches II » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:44 pm
by Great Minarchistan » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:46 pm
The East Marches II wrote:No to sin taxes in general, insurance can rape you in prices if you want a bad habit.
by Thermodolia » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:47 pm
The East Marches II wrote:No to sin taxes in general, insurance can rape you in prices if you want a bad habit.
by Thermodolia » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:47 pm
by The East Marches II » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:49 pm
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:50 pm
The East Marches II wrote:No to sin taxes in general, insurance can rape you in prices if you want a bad habit.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Thermodolia » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:50 pm
The East Marches II wrote:Thermodolia wrote:Well I'm not the biggest fan of insurance companies in general, they are a pos and a pain in the ass.
And my experience with government care leads me to believe they are incompetent fucks. Unless Uncle Sam is providing the insurance himself, he has no interest in that sort of thing. Sin taxes are merely a gimmick for moral busy bodies to feign disapproval while profiting from your choice. It's the worst sort of hypocrisy.
by Greater USA » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:52 pm
Thermodolia wrote:Greater USA wrote:
The problem with hard drugs is that their presence disrupts communities and life beyond what we see with alcohol and tobacco. Criminal activity is tied to areas with illegal drug usage, and this isn't just due to smuggling being banned. Drugs have severe effects on health, economic productivity, safety, gang activity, etc.
Fund hospitals and rehabilitation centers with the drug tax money
by Great Minarchistan » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:53 pm
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:I wouldn't go with a sin tax.
But rather categorize it under a luxury sales tax instead.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:53 pm
The East Marches II wrote:Thermodolia wrote:Well I'm not the biggest fan of insurance companies in general, they are a pos and a pain in the ass.
And my experience with government care leads me to believe they are incompetent fucks. Unless Uncle Sam is providing the insurance himself, he has no interest in that sort of thing. Sin taxes are merely a gimmick for moral busy bodies to feign disapproval while profiting from your choice. It's the worst sort of hypocrisy.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Greater USA » Fri Mar 24, 2017 7:53 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Dazchan, Elejamie, Europa Undivided, Forsher, Google [Bot], Hidrandia, Ineva, La Xinga, Nu Elysium, Phobos Drilling and Manufacturing, Senkaku, Shrillland, Stellar Colonies, Umeria
Advertisement