Harvard Economist: Legalizing Drugs Suits Ideal of American Freedom

[whiteKelso]

---

nindot sad ni e apply sa pinas

[emow]

The limitation of that individual is not because of any impediment to the exercise of his liberties, but that he choose to operate within the constraints of his financial situation. I see many men who find ways to achieve things inspite of poverty and physical defects. Both examples showcase the exercise of freedom. Bottomline, they operated with their conscious decision to find ways or to settle what is.

1. After all liberty in that sense is not really absolute for
still we are dependent, the word asking connotes bondage
not free, dependent upon the suggestion of others either
to concur or not.

Do you have any authority to impose your will on another individual concerning that individuals private affairs?


2. If they ask me through my authority,
them truly I am. What if I'm the justice system
then someone agrieve approach me for fairness,
by then I do have influence on their private affairs.

What a collectivist principle you have shown. Patriotism will not do the world any good. The place you were born is just by chance. I don't hold so much value for anything that is by chance.


3. By chance or not still we have to continue existing,
that is our main purpose in life, mostly if there are life
that is depending upon us (that's when responsibility sets in)
Without patriotism then there would be no driving force behind
to fill in what is lacking, I figure out, would lead into becoming destitute sort of,
for the country and eventually a grieve effect towards its inhabitants.

Filipinos need not sacrifice there own individual aspirations for the good of the country. Otherwise, that would be communism. Are you hinting such an idea?

4. No we call it heroism,
and they are very well being gratified.


Regulates commonality? what do you mean? like that of the Islamic state governments?

5. Of course it should be regulated
when you talk about millions and even nowadays billions,
what will happen if you just leave that multitude believing only
with their freedom and not following a common norm or law,
only the strongest,the wise, and the brave would remain?
how about the rights of others the weak ones, they do have the right
to exist, I think so.

1. Asking connotes bondage... well, everyone is entitled to their logic, even how faulty it is.

"dependent upon the suggestion of others" ...really? You can say that for yourself.
2. You have their CONSENT first before you intrude their private affairs, therefore your authority is preceded by their consent. Otherwise, you have no moral authority to do so. Under normal circumstance, you cannot impose your will on others.
3. Well, that's what you believe. Nothing much to argue.
4. Heroism... yes, i believe that's how they attribute patriotism in communism, comrade. To encourage people to sacrifice their selves for the good of the country or whatever bull$hit they want to attribute.
5. I guess what you meant was to protect rights, not regulate commonality. Freedom is only meaningful with respect to the natural rights of others. I have never endorsed something that you are trying to accuse me of advocating. You are free to do what you want so long as it doesn't harm others. That is freedom. When your freedom breeches the rights of others, then you have caused injustice which should be dealt accordingly.

[Bentleys]

1. Asking connotes bondage... well, everyone is entitled to their logic, even how faulty it is.

"dependent upon the suggestion of others" ...really? You can say that for yourself.
2. You have their CONSENT first before you intrude their private affairs, therefore your authority is preceded by their consent. Otherwise, you have no moral authority to do so. Under normal circumstance, you cannot impose your will on others.
3. Well, that's what you believe. Nothing much to argue.
4. Heroism... yes, i believe that's how they attribute patriotism in communism, comrade. To encourage people to sacrifice their selves for the good of the country or whatever bull$hit they want to attribute.
5. I guess what you meant was to protect rights, not regulate commonality. Freedom is only meaningful with respect to the natural rights of others. I have never endorsed something that you are trying to accuse me of advocating. You are free to do what you want so long as it doesn't harm others. That is freedom. When your freedom breeches the rights of others, then you have caused injustice which should be dealt accordingly.

1. Of course it is, how can you be free when
what you wish for is dependent upon other person's opinion.
so what would you call that then, it's a bond between asking
and the agreement needed.

2. If they already submit themselves, what consent do I still need?

4. We need patriotism or the love of country, for we exist not as individual
but as a whole, functioning as a whole with interdependency towards
each other, what a member would contribute it will benefit the entire
and the entire would retribute in aiding the individual to prosper himself.

5. Protecting individual rights is the very foundation why a common justice
system was made to regulate the commonalty.

[emow]

1. Of course it is, how can you be free when
what you wish for is dependent upon other person's opinion.
so what would you call that then, it's a bond between asking
and the agreement needed.

2. If they already submit themselves, what consent do I still need?

4. We need patriotism or the love of country, for we exist not as individual
but as a whole, functioning as a whole with interdependency towards
each other, what a member would contribute it will benefit the entire
and the entire would retribute in aiding the individual to prosper himself.

5. Protecting individual rights is the very foundation why a common justice
system was made to regulate the commonalty.

1. Dependent to the other person's freedom to decide on what you are asking for. That is not slavery but a concrete example of how two people's freedom interact with one another. The absence of force makes it a desirable human interaction. The element of force and aggression makes the difference between freedom and slavery. If a gun is pointed to the father to force him to submit to the desire of the son, then freedom has been violated, hence injustice has been committed.

2. Wrong.

"If they ask me through my authority,
them truly I am. What if I'm the justice system
then someone agrieve approach me for fairness,
by then I do have influence on their private affairs"

In your own example, they have approached you first. It's not you who intervened prior to their consent. Approaching you is somehow giving consent to your intervention in their problems, unless other details of the scenario arises.

4. That's your opinion. For me, it is immoral for any entity to force anyone even towards any noble goal, violating that individual's control over his own life. We are not born as a community but as an individual. We can only control our actions and not of others. We don't need patriotism. We need to mind our own business and penalize us only when we violate the rights of others.


5. wrong. Protecting individual rights is the very foundation why laws are written. The justice system is not there to regulate anything. Unless you are using wrong words to mean something else.

[Bentleys]

1. Dependent to the other person's freedom to decide on what you are asking for. That is not slavery but a concrete example of how two people's freedom interact with one another. The absence of force makes it a desirable human interaction. The element of force and aggression makes the difference between freedom and slavery. If a gun is pointed to the father to force him to submit to the desire of the son, then freedom has been violated, hence injustice has been committed.

In the absence or presence of force
still concurrence is needed and such supercedes
freedom in that sense.

2. Wrong.

"If they ask me through my authority,
them truly I am. What if I'm the justice system
then someone agrieve approach me for fairness,
by then I do have influence on their private affairs"

In your own example, they have approached you first. It's not you who intervened prior to their consent. Approaching you is somehow giving consent to your intervention in their problems, unless other details of the scenario arises

In prosecution or in the defence of an individual we do need
the complete detail, then how can it be wrong then.

4. That's your opinion. For me, it is immoral for any entity to force anyone even towards any noble goal, violating that individual's control over his own life. We are not born as a community but as an individual. We can only control our actions and not of others. We don't need patriotism. We need to mind our own business and penalize us only when we violate the rights of others.

Whether you like it or not if you are situated in a community you should function as a part
of that community, and it would be a big bonus for the group if you
could contribute aside of your being functional. Your welfare is dependent upon
the welfare of the group as one that's the main essence.


5. wrong. Protecting individual rights is the very foundation why laws are written. The justice system is not there to regulate anything. Unless you are using wrong words to mean something else.

So for you the justice system is so close for being useless
for it's not there to regulate, how would you appear if you do not
believe in such, a good candidate for the penal colony?


Okay,
it seems that we're just circumnavigating here,
direct to the point now, shall we?

Do you think that by taking prohibited drugs
constitutes freedom, no human rights and no laws
are breached.

[emow]

Dependent to the other person's freedom to decide on what you are asking for. That is not slavery but a concrete example of how two people's freedom interact with one another. The absence of force makes it a desirable human interaction. The element of force and aggression makes the difference between freedom and slavery. If a gun is pointed to the father to force him to submit to the desire of the son, then freedom has been violated, hence injustice has been committed.

1. In the absence or presence of force
still concurrence is needed and such supercedes
freedom in that sense.

Wrong.

"If they ask me through my authority,
them truly I am. What if I'm the justice system
then someone agrieve approach me for fairness,
by then I do have influence on their private affairs"

In your own example, they have approached you first. It's not you who intervened prior to their consent. Approaching you is somehow giving consent to your intervention in their problems, unless other details of the scenario arises

2. In prosecution or in the defence of an individual we do need
the complete detail, then how can it be wrong then.

That's your opinion. For me, it is immoral for any entity to force anyone even towards any noble goal, violating that individual's control over his own life. We are not born as a community but as an individual. We can only control our actions and not of others. We don't need patriotism. We need to mind our own business and penalize us only when we violate the rights of others.

3. Whether you like it or not if you are situated in a community you should function as a part
of that community, and it would be a big bonus for the group if you
could contribute aside of your being functional. Your welfare is dependent upon
the welfare of the group as one that's the main essence.


wrong. Protecting individual rights is the very foundation why laws are written. The justice system is not there to regulate anything. Unless you are using wrong words to mean something else.

4. So for you the justice system is so close for being useless
for it's not there to regulate, how would you appear if you do not
believe in such, a good candidate for the penal colony?


5. Okay,
it seems that we're just circumnavigating here,
direct to the point now, shall we?

Do you think that by taking prohibited drugs
constitutes freedom, no human rights and no laws
are breached.

1. Are you serious in your response?
2. I have given you an analysis limited on the details you have initially given hence i said "unless other details arise." Somehow, you have diluted the discussion by pettifogging with insignificant inputs.
3. whether you like it or not, i have my own beliefs. That's freedom. You have the freedom to be a chess piece also. no problem, just don't step over my rights.
4. Please use basic English construction of your sentence. That should help you to be clear in what you are trying to say.

I didn't state anything close to what you are accusing me.
5. We are going in circles. I think you need some improvement in stating your ideas in basic english construction as well as comprehending the main thought of a discussion.


Taking drugs prohibited by the country's legislation violates that country's laws. It doesn't violate any other person's rights though. It constitutes freedom. The enforcement of that law is a violation of the freedom of that person, his rights. Therefore, the law violated its primary function to protect rights.

[Bentleys]

1. Are you serious in your response?
2. I have given you an analysis limited on the details you have initially given hence i said "unless other details arise." Somehow, you have diluted the discussion by pettifogging with insignificant inputs.
3. whether you like it or not, i have my own beliefs. That's freedom. You have the freedom to be a chess piece also. no problem, just don't step over my rights.
4. Please use basic English construction of your sentence. That should help you to be clear in what you are trying to say.

I didn't state anything close to what you are accusing me.
5. We are going in circles. I think you need some improvement in stating your ideas in basic english construction as well as comprehending the main thought of a discussion.

Okay let's just leave these to qualified English professors
and lawyers,for I think you're not. Pettifogging eh.


Let's proceed to the topic below
kay maorag off topic na ta padulong


Taking drugs prohibited by the country's legislation violates that country's laws. It doesn't violate any other person's rights though. It constitutes freedom. The enforcement of that law is a violation of the freedom of that person, his rights. Therefore, the law violated its primary function to protect rights.

So the law now is bad because it prohibits the use
of drugs and it does not violate other persons
right. I wish to ask if I may, how drug related crimes
affects us nowadays. Please see the link below.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/DRRC.PDF

So the use of drugs should be exempted from the law
for it denies rights of an individual, what right?
to commit crime? and how about the victims are
their rights not violated because of the crime made?.

I hope you will not say that I'm pettifogging this time,
for such a statement is pure nonsense and BS, sorry my bad.

[emow]

Okay let's just leave these to qualified English professors
and lawyers,for I think you're not. Pettifogging eh.


Let's proceed to the topic below
kay maorag off topic na ta padulong


Taking drugs prohibited by the country's legislation violates that country's laws. It doesn't violate any other person's rights though. It constitutes freedom. The enforcement of that law is a violation of the freedom of that person, his rights. Therefore, the law violated its primary function to protect rights.

So the law now is bad because it prohibits the use
of drugs and it does not violate other persons
right. I wish to ask if I may, how drug related crimes
affects us nowadays. Please see the link below.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/DRRC.PDF

So the use of drugs should be exempted from the law
for it denies rights of an individual, what right?
to commit crime? and how about the victims are
their rights not violated because of the crime made?.

I hope you will not say that I'm pettifogging this time,
for such a statement is pure nonsense and BS, sorry my bad.

The use of drugs is not the business of anyone. IF a man commits a crime that may or may not be cause directly from the usage of drugs, then prosecute him based on his actual crime, violating the rights of other people. That is a separate issue.

Laws are preceded by the existence of inalienable rights of men. Right to Life. Right to Liberty (freedom). Right to Property. Therefore, the only moral function of a law is to protect these rights, no matter how disagreeable they may be provided no other rights are trampled. The anti-drug law is therefore has no moral authority in intervening with the person's personal decision.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

Naa na pod ni ang issues about LEGALIZATION lol .

Marijuana is LEGAL as a MEDICINAL DRUG , not as a RECREATIONAL DRUG .

In the case of TAR , CRACK and COKE ?

Let the economist talk about economy , spare the drug addiction problem like he as really smoked one in his life . Him being from HARVARD and an ECONOMIST doesnt mean anything , I have more respect to a SOCIAL WORKER coming from the neighborhood community college.

Here sa iSTORYA pod , I bet , most of you can only talk about it but never live with it . Kinsay naka suway na ninyo ug CRACK and TAR ? Di lang sa ta mag hisgut ug COKE kay basin sa salida ni Al Pacino ra mo naka dungog ana , or worst ga tuo mo ug sopdrink na.