imported post
Gunslinger wrote:
marshaul wrote:
FogRider wrote:
SlackwareRobert wrote:
Of course they have sentenced people for cocain, when they buy/sell baking soda
Well, that's intent to buy. It's not like those folks were busted walking home with a box of Arm & Hammer. Which brings up another question, should attempting and failing at committing a crime be a crime? And I'm not talking about thinking about or even planning to commit a crime, I'm talking about someone who was actually trying but for whatever reason didn't quite make it.
Well, seeing as the sale of drugs represents a nonaggressive transfer of goods between two consenting adults using their own personal property, and is thus far from a criminal act, I fail to see how the state has any moral, ethical, or legal (by common law) justification for its criminal actions toward the drug dealers. To me, it seems that a person who hasn't even managed to make the drugs yet is even less a criminal, if that is in fact possible.
Some pos selling heroin laced with arsenic to a 14 year old is a "nonaggressive transfer of goods between two consenting adults using their own personal property, and is thus far from a criminal act, I fail to see how the state has any moral, ethical..."
What are you smoking? Oh, wait, a 14 year old isn't a 'consenting adult' Iin all jurisdictions. Sorry, make that a 16 year old who would be charged as an adult under our amoral, unethical laws. Ok now...
I think it's pretty clear I said "adult", and I've never argued that 16-year-olds be treated as adults (in a legal context). If, in fact, you can find a "drug dealer" who sells "heroin laced with arsenic" (nice fantasy you have here, by the way) to children, then I'll agree he should be locked up. But, the vast majority of drug dealers who are imprisoned have
not sold any such thing to children, and many of them are exactly as I described.
What you've made is a "misleading vividness" fallacy. I didn't say anything about actual criminals. I said that "drug dealing", in and of itself, between consenting adults, is not behavior worthy of being deemed "criminal."
Gunslinger wrote:
marshaul wrote:
You obviously didn't read my post carefully enough. The only law I referenced was common law (which for me also assumes natural law).
Common law does not assume natural law. Both Locke and Jefferson made that very clear. Man declines to be ruled by natural law when he joins society. He then becomes subject to common law before codification takes place. Codification is based upon the precepts of common law initially. It then becomes either refined or corrupted, dependent upon your point of view--and I know yours, by revisionism. Rousseau held that man, at that point, could renounce and return to natural law. Jefferson and Locke disagreed. But common law
never assumes natural law. It replaces it.
You're right; I didn't mean to suggest anything to the contrary from a historical perspective. However, English common law is derived from natural law, even though it is considered to replace it for practical purposes. As a result, I would argue that any rule of law contrary to natural rights is a violation of common law, not technically but ethically.
Devils Advocate wrote:
So what marshaul seems to be saying is that citizens should be allowed to make a buck any way they can as long as it is not done in an aggressive way.
I should also be allowed to steal unattended property from cars and sell it to others willing to buy stolen goods. Nobody is hurt and this is done between two consenting adults.
Many people successfully use drugs in a recreational way. But there are others that get hooked on it and refuse to work. Instead, they steal from and rob others to get money for more drugs.
And then the drugs are made with deadly chemicals or are so pure that people die from using it not knowing this ahead of time.
Those that sell drugs fight to protect their turf and kill those that try to poach.
So I can see how selling drugs is as non aggressive thing and should be allowed. Nothing but good can come of it, right?
Somebody does not see the bigger picture.
I suspect MORE people would die or become thieves and armed robbers if drugs were more easily available.
They will never win the war on drugs just like they will never stop all speeders on the roadway.
But the enforcement action taking place now dues keep the death rate lower than what it could be.
The reason I rarely address your posts directly (as you'll see I do with other members, such as gunslinger here) is because you're so often "in over your head", so to speak.
For example, you routinely assume the elementary, first-enumerated dictionary definition of every word used in a discussion, without consideration of
context. This is a big part of the reason I enjoy making fun of you for your "nom d'net", which I consider to be continuing irony.
In this particular case, you assume a simplistic definition of "aggression". For the libertarian (or even natural rights theorist),
aggression is something of a "term of art".
Simply put, any volitive action (that is, not mere "behavior") which violates the rights of another constitutes aggression.
To understand what is meant by
aggression, I suggest you read the wikipedia article on
the non-aggression principle