Political "debates"

[Elle]

[TheMaster]

[Elle]

[Elle]

[akiva]

[Stan]

[TheMaster]

[Tahlvin]

[Mike]

[Elle]

[TheMaster]

[Stan]

[Mike]

[Bluedevyl]

My brother in law is an ardent libertarian, but I have difficulty "debating" with him, as he is a big fan of guys like Michael Savage and Alex Jones, and as a result, is generally not a fan of things like... factual information.

One thing he says, and this is a refrain I hear often, is that the government doesn't do anything to help him personally, so why should he help?

One of my issues with the idea that, if you don't want government assistance, you shouldnt have to pay for it, is that the 'government' affects you in ways that you literally can not avoid, and it is literally impossible to not take advantage of.

He lives a few hours west of us, but routinely drives the few hours east to see the family. On the NYS Thruway. This would literally not be possible without taxes taken from his paycheck to help keep the roads from deteriorating... to make the damn road in the first place.

We live in one of the snowiest places in the country. His roads are plowed daily. He listens to Pandora and watches Netflix, on high-speed internet that would NEVER have been dropped into his neighborhood without MASSIVE government subsidies. His garbage gets taken away.

These are things that most everyone takes for granted, but would DRASTICALLY impede his way of life if the government were to give way to anarchy, as he so frequently mentions he wish would happen.

[TheMaster]

[Bonefish]

Once again I will throw my hat into the defense of ones right to use substances that alter the mind and arevpossibly addicting. The central theme of my opposition to prohibition schemes are that they are subject to corruption, encourage crime and are non effective for actually combating substance abuse. They are also contrary to human behavior and education. Our irresponsible approach to substance abuse, treating it as a criminal, rather than medical condition is simply not morally or ethically acceptable.

The use of mind altering substances is endemic to the human condition, with beer predating agriculture. The use of cannabis goes back atleast 4000 years. The use of mind altering g substances occurs on a regular basis for billions of humans, humans who are functional, co tributing members of society. So there is a reason to believe that there is some sort of "responsible use" threshold before it becomes abuse.

I understand the need for regulation of any industry, but our current tack is non effective. We fuel massive insurgencies in central. We haven't really reduced the flow of drugs, in fact the supply is higher than it has ever been. And we have several states that are approaching 4 years of legalization, with great results.

[Elle]