Does Firefly promote Prostitution? by Succatash

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:

But the ban on marijuana has not failed? I disagree...

You are disagreeing only with yourself.

Look, The only thing I was trying to argue against was the idea that morality is somehow disconnected from reality. That it exists "out there" or in the mind, or is just made up with no concern nor feedback from the real world effects moral (or immoral) actions have on both the idividual and/or society.

You want to argue that the prohibition against marijuana has failed, you need to find someone who disagrees with that position. All I did was point out that at the time, violations against the prohibitions against drinking were widespread and obvious. That is why Prohibition against alcohol got reversed.

Pot smokers were not as prevelent, nor nearly as obvious about their violations of self same laws, and so those laws did not get reversed. Its nothing more than a description of the causitive mechanism.

Quote:
For some folks if its the choice between prohibitions on drink, or get beat up by a drunk husband, they'll sacrifice liberty to avoid getting killed.

Quote:

But should they be able to sacrifice my liberty, because they married a drunk? I vote 'no'.

You vote no, and everyone else vote yes, you lose in a democracy. And they would be justified in doing so, simply to stop the mess they get stuck cleaning up, by folks using the freedom irresponsibly. If you are irresponsible in utilizing your freedoms, and as a result leave a mess for others to clean up, they are going to vote against you. Out of pure self preservation.

The problem is not the opposition camp. The problem is among your own camp, who are screwing it up for everyone.

Quote:
I'm generally in favor of freedom over protection. The only things that should be crimes are actions that violate the freedoms of others, in my mind. Homicide, rape, arson - these all affect others. More minor things like public drunkeness, or assualt also affect others, just less so (BTW, for anyone who didn't know, assualt is threatening violence). But I were using herion right now, alone in my house...that affects no one but myself.
...I'm not, by the way.

Again, you need to find someone who disagrees with you to argue this point. The problem, again, was this was not what was happening. Folks were getting drunk and causing problems for others. Folks were making messes that someone else got stuck cleaning up. Cleaning up someone else's mess is never fun, and most folks don't like it. So they will do what they see as necessary to prevent getting stuck like that.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"Those willing to sacrifice liberty for security shall not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Benjamin Franklin.

Its a nice sentiment, but if it gets you killed, it ain't worth a damn. It makes a nice sound bite, but as a matter of practical advice, its not that good.

Besides which, the Temperance Unions were not sacrificing THEIR liberty, as they didn't drink. They were sacrificing the liberty of others.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Doran:
The fact is, it appears that the legalized protitution in the Firefly world is actually Alliance sponsored.

I don't think it is Alliance sponsored so much as Companion Guild sponsored.

Making prostitution illegal, well, it still hasn't stamped it out. And by forcing it underground, has opened a whole nest of nastiness, especially near slavery to pimps. Remember Nandi's comments about the former owner of the "Heart of Gold"?

As a response to these kinds of excesses, I imagine the prostitutes unionized and rebelled. Got legislation passed to give their profession legal status, thereby throwing off the pimps and slave masters, as well as offering a better "product" to their clients.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 23, 2004 12:12 AM

I agree with CANTTAKESKY:

Quote:
Yes, mistakes are messy. But people have to be allowed to make them, and learn from them, to learn independence and responsibility.

To say the same thing with different words:

I hear people yabber on about individual responsibility. Seems they never stop to realize that you can't teach responsibility by denying the pupil the chance to practise it -- or by protecting him from the consequences of his own actions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 23, 2004 12:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Be aware that I'm playing devil's advocate in my post, and don't neccesarily support all these extreme measures.

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
The only things that should be crimes are actions that violate the freedoms of others, in my mind. Homicide, rape, arson - these all affect others.

But what if you lived in Canada, or somewhere else with a socialized health care system? Consider this scenario: Some Canadian smokes ciggarettes, inhaling cancer-causing nicotine. The tar and carbon monoxide probably don't help either. Eventually he gets cancer, and 5 doctors have to slice a tumor out of him in a giant operation. The Canadian taxpayer unfairly has to pay the bill due to someone's negligence.

Also, when you say that bans don't work, you may be right. But we could make them work by raising the penalties until they violate the Constitution. If we had all illegal drug possesion punishable by death, we'd have a lot less drug addicts. Of course, we'd also have to give our cops M-16s and bulletproof vests.

One way to stop the tobacco problem completely would be to ban it for everybody born in the 21st century. Then everybody born after 2000 would know that if they smoked they'd get 150 years in jail. For addicted immigrants, you'd just deport them.

But that's just babble. I say legalize drugs, prostitution and gambling, but you'd need a permit for the first two, and you'd need to pass a class about the risks. Of course, you'd also need to let me have an assault rifle for defense against drugged-up theives.

I would agree with the following caveats and addendums. Increase the penalty, or more fully enforce laws against drunk (or intoxicated) driving, public nuisance laws, etc. Give employers the right to fire people for being drunk or intoxicated on the job, without risk of lawsuit. Which also means making drug testing by employers unactionable. It may be an invasion of privacy, however, the employer's liability has to be reduced somehow.

This would also mean unions not protecting members that screw up. And that, I am not sure is going to happen any time soon.

Not so sure about the permit thing, or classes. That is just handing power back to the government. I understand the goal, reducing the risk to society for the actions of a few, I am just not sure that is the way to go about it. Sometimes arbitrary age limits are better than having some kind of cop decide who is, and is not, responsible enough for an activity.

In some ways, it seems this weird prohibition does work in reducing society's risks. It forces those who take drugs to do so responsibly, out of sight of the rest, and to clean up their own mess. And when the problem gets visible, well, the drug user is not acting responsibily, and it gives the courts the means to take care of the problem before it gets too damaging.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 23, 2004 12:39 AM

Quote:
You vote no, and everyone else vote yes, you lose in a democracy.

Which is why the people who created this country tried to prevent Democracy.

As James Madison put it, "A common passion or interest will always sway a majority, and there is no inducement to prevent them from sacrificing the weaker party. Hence it is that democracies have ever been incompatible with personal liberty, and rights to property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

The prohibitions mentioned, alcohol, (some) drugs, firearms, &c., were not created to solve some "problem," but were instead attempts to "control" an unpopular minority. Also to expand and consolidate political power.

Many people view politicians as problem solvers. If that were true, then pretty soon we wouldn't have any problems to speak of, and would have little need for politicians.
It is actually in the best interest of political careers that we have as many problems as they can possibly create for us.

The unspoken motto of any government, bureaucracy, or lobbying group is: "If you solve the problem, you're out of a job."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 23, 2004 1:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:

"Yes, permits for drug use is a good idea, one I'd support. Same goes for prostitution."

Steve, when someone else can tell you what you may or may not do with your own body -- through "permits" or any other device -- they are claiming a property right in, and ownership of, your body. This is in short ... slavery.

"And I'm all for the second amendment...but...an assualt rifle?"
-Steve

I don't care what you own ... only how you use it! In short; every man, every woman, every responsible child, has an absolute, innate, inherent, inalienable, natural, civil, Constitutional, and human right to acquire and own any handgun, any rifle, any shotgun, any machine gun -- ANYTHING! -- and to carry it, openly or concealed, any place, any time, without asking anybodys permission.

In my view, you are the absolute owner of your own life. And you have the right to live your life in any manner you choose. Provided, that you do not forcibly interfere with anyone else's right to live their life in what ever manner they choose.

The ONLY thing I would argue is that our lives affect others. And sometimes other people get left dealing with the consequences of our own freely chosen actions, both intended as well as unintended. And that is where the whole problem originates with this grand notion.

There is a contradiction in the very concept of "rights". In practical terms, your right to say, own a gun, means that I have no freedom to stop you. And personally I don't care as long as your gun ownership is not a problem to me, does not result in a mess I have to clean up. But when you make it my problem, I'll deal with it in what I think is the best way, whether you like it or not.

We can work out a "social contract", agree that you have the right to own guns, or whatever obligations you want to place on me, as long as the same obligations are reciprocated, as long as I can place the same obligations on you. That includes the obligation to practice your freedom in a responsible manner, so as not to cause me any problems. You don't break the deal, I won't. But if you do, then I am no longer bound by those the obligations you have placed on me.

[It should be noted that this only works in the area of "negative rights" My obligation in recognizing your right to own guns is inaction as a response to that ownership. To do nothing to stop you. However, if you claim say, a right to housing, or medical care, or my property, then we got a problem. If you can build your own house, you don't need a right to housing, nor me to build you one. And if you cannot, then you cannot reciprocate, offer me the equivalent obligation in return.]

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 23, 2004 1:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:

All adults who wish to indulge in drugs should receive their fix free from the government pharmacy...so long as they qualify for and maintain their license...qualification including a reasonable amount of hours caring for drug-related victims (AIDS, accident victims, babies, etc.).

Why should the taxpayers support your drug habit? (I am using you in the metaphorical sense, as this sounds like crap when one keeps referring to "one" or "someone" or "they")

You got a desire. YOU fulfill that desire, don't make it a burden on me (a taxpayer) You get a job, or grow your own or whatever. Don't make me an involuntary party to it.

And that right there demostrates the whole problem. Once you start making others unwilling accomplices, those unwilling accomplices will do what it takes to stop accomplicing. If that means locking up drug users, or even killing them, well, it solves the taxpayer's problem quite effectively.

You may not get your fix, may end up in prison, or even dead. But the only reason why that would occur is because you made me part of your actions and I didn't want to be.

It puts you in a difficult place to argue for. You want to follow your desires, why can't I follow mine to be free of the burden you are putting on me? Why should your desire trump mine?

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 23, 2004 1:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
Now this, I'm gonna have to disagree with. Carrying a submachine gun through a shopping mall - gonna have to say 'no' on that one. I don't want corporations to be able to purchase tanks and jet-fighters, either. I mean, hey, I'm all about freedom...but you need to draw the line somewhere. Way, way in the distance, past the horizen, farther away than anyone will probably ever go...but somewhere, a line must exist.
-Steve

Congratulations. Now you see the problem. I think everyone agrees with that sentiment. What they don't agree with is exactly where that line should be drawn. Some will say "no private ownership of ICBMs. Some will say, no drugs and prostitution.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 23, 2004 1:46 AM

Quote:
We can work out a "social contract", agree that you have the right to own guns, or whatever obligations you want to place on me, as long as the same obligations are reciprocated, as long as I can place the same obligations on you. That includes the obligation to practice your freedom in a responsible manner, so as not to cause me any problems. You don't break the deal, I won't. But if you do, then I am no longer bound by those the obligations you have placed on me.

That's exactly what I said -- with different words.

Quote:
It should be noted that this only works in the area of "negative rights" My obligation in recognizing your right to own guns is inaction as a response to that ownership. To do nothing to stop you. However, if you claim say, a right to housing, or medical care, or my property, then we got a problem. If you can build your own house, you don't need a right to housing, nor me to build you one. And if you cannot, then you cannot reciprocate, offer me the equivalent obligation in return.

If what you are saying is that an individual has a right to earn property, but not to vote for it, then we are in complete agreement.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 23, 2004 1:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Anything can be seen as a problem. Not having the right religion can be seen as a problem. Criticizing the government can be seen as a problem. Television shows that sidestep cursing laws by cursing in a foreign language can be seen as a problem. The question is, who gets to decide what is seen as "a problem"? How much power does the government get to have to declare "problems" and what limits should there be against such power?

It depends mostly on the particular type of government. In democracies, the voters get to declare what is, and is not, a problem. And to a large extent, what the solution is. In tyrannies, whoever is the elite du jour gets to decide.

Quote:
Quote:
Morality is a function of our environment and the potential consequences of our actions. If someone has to clean up the mess you made, well that someone is gonna make sure you don't do whatever it was that created that mess in the first place.

If you don't like cleaning up the mess I made, you can always choose to NOT CLEAN IT UP.

This is not a viable option. You living in your own waste, well, that waste exists somewhere. Neighbors have to deal with the smell, or the risk of diseases or what other problems that can cause. Employers have businesses to run, and family, friends and relatives have emotional attachments.

How bout this. YOU NOT MAKE A MESS FOR OTHERS to begin with. You seem intent on demanding your rights, with little thought to the responsiblities such rights entail, or the rights of others. This is not a good idea, if you wish to garner the benefits of living in any society.

Quote:

"Morality" as you put it, is simply people's inability to tolerate other people's messes. It is the legal equivalent of the obsessive-compulsive need for cleanliness and is ultimately self-serving. Yes, mistakes are messy. But people have to be allowed to make them, and learn from them, to learn independence and responsibility.

Getting killed by a drunk driver is messy. Its also a direct threat to the lives and welfare and rights of other folks. Watching out for your own safety is hardly "enabling" nor anything like what you are talking about here. It may be a mistake, but that does not bring anyone back from the dead.

YOu are not talking about responsibility here, but tolerating irresponsible behavior, even if that behavior is a direct threat to the lives, welfare and rights of others. That is just not going to work, folks, out of self preservation, are not going to stand for it. They can't, it is simply too dangerous, too costly, and too risky.

Quote:
I am not saying there are no "problems" or that people with problems shouldn't get help. I am saying we who choose to help should take responsibility for our own choices and not blame it all on people with "problems."

I am not getting this. If the people with "problems" had not created the problem in the first place, there would be no problem to solve, no mess for others to clean up. I am not quite sure what you mean here.

A lot of times, you have no choice whether to solve a problem or not, other than let the problem fester to the point where it hurts you. If you want the right to do drugs or what have you, the solution to me is quite simple. Don't make it anybody else's problem.

Quote:
Moreover, prostitution and drug abuse and not wearing seat belts are not "problems" that involve force against others. As a Libertarian, I believe that solutions involving government force should generally be reserved for problems that involve someone initiating force (with a few exceptions). All other problems can be addressed with non-forceful, non-violent solutions.

Whether you see it as a problem or not, or whether I agree or not, is irrelevant. Lets face it, what has screwed this all up is the folks who have used their freedoms irresponsibly, who have driven drunk or stoned, passed diseases along, produced unwanted children, beat their wives after getting plastered at the local saloon.

It is because of the irresponsible folks that the rest of us had those freedoms denied, as a means of preventing those problems from being a problem to others. Just like with gun laws. Its not the millions of legal, and responsible gun owners who are a problem, its the minority who cause more damage disproportionate to their numbers, who have created a mess, that folks just want cleaned up. They got the votes.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 23, 2004 2:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:

If what you are saying is that an individual has a right to earn property, but not to vote for it, then we are in complete agreement.

Good. But that is not all I am saying. I have no problem with your freedom as long as you don't make it a problem for me. Its when you do, that I got a problem, that I have to solve. And my interest is in fixing MY problem. Not so much in what you want or desire.

If you are the source of that problem, I usually consider that breaking the contract, and if the contract is broken, well, its broken and I am no longer bound to it. I understand accidents, and mistakes. And willing to grant some leeway, as long as you fix the problem, and don't let it happen again.

With rights come responsibilities. Not so much to use that freedom "wisely" no matter how its defined, but to utilize it in such a manner as to avoid being a detriment to others. I see a lot of folks complaining about their rights being violated, but I am seeing all too little about why other folks feel free to violate those rights in the first place. The problem is not the voters, or those who "choose" to clean up the messes of others. Its the guys who make the messes and screw it up for the rest of us.

The entire purpose of the concept of rights in the first place is to further and promote the lives and happiness of all. To garner the benefits of a society, without being so tolerant that you tolerate your own death. And that means taking personal responsibility for your actions, and cleaning up your own mess. Or better, not making a mess in the first place. Then nobody has to clean up what ain't there.

Besides which, if you can't take responsibility for your failures, how can you take responsibility for your successes?

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 23, 2004 3:46 AM

TRUK

A great question but a thread that ran completely amuck.

Who gives a shit about your long-winded opinions or supposed thesis-supported arguments? You don't have a better outlet? It sucks to be you...smart without an audience. Or opinionated without a clue?

To answer the question, it don't matter. {wannabe Joss} Mal decides what's right & wrong and so do you.

It sounds like you guys are a bunch of damn fools...oh, I'm sorry, that's me.

"I'm like a Phoenix...reborn again...rising from Arizona!" - Frank Costanza

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 23, 2004 10:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:

And I'm all for the second amendment...but...an assualt rifle?

Hey, here in the USA we have magazines that legally, openly sell AK-47 ammo. I have some in my house. Also, the ban on assault rifles is ending, so soon you'll be able to buy them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 23, 2004 10:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:

I don't care what you own ... only how you use it! In short; every man, every woman, every responsible child, has an absolute, innate, inherent, inalienable, natural, civil, Constitutional, and human right to acquire and own any handgun, any rifle, any shotgun, any machine gun -- ANYTHING! -- and to carry it, openly or concealed, any place, any time, without asking anybodys permission.

While I agree with you, I have to say that this is a conservative, Republican principle. It's also a conservative, Republican principle that your nation can be invaded for having "banned" weapons. Not criticizing you, just pointing that out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 23, 2004 2:19 PM

STEVE580

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Quote:
I'm generally in favor of freedom over protection. The only things that should be crimes are actions that violate the freedoms of others, in my mind. Homicide, rape, arson - these all affect others. More minor things like public drunkeness, or assualt also affect others, just less so (BTW, for anyone who didn't know, assualt is threatening violence). But I were using herion right now, alone in my house...that affects no one but myself.
...I'm not, by the way.

Again, you need to find someone who disagrees with you to argue this point. The problem, again, was this was not what was happening. Folks were getting drunk and causing problems for others. Folks were making messes that someone else got stuck cleaning up. Cleaning up someone else's mess is never fun, and most folks don't like it. So they will do what they see as necessary to prevent getting stuck like that.

Wasn't so much arguing a point as writting where I stand on the issue.

Quote:
Congratulations. Now you see the problem. I think everyone agrees with that sentiment. What they don't agree with is exactly where that line should be drawn. Some will say "no private ownership of ICBMs. Some will say, no drugs and prostitution.

Not sure I see the similarity. If spend tonight with a whore, how is that the same as you stock-piling ICBMs? It isn't that the latter is a more extreme example of the first; they don't fall into the same category at all!

Quote:
Hey, here in the USA we have magazines that legally, openly sell AK-47 ammo. I have some in my house. Also, the ban on assault rifles is ending, so soon you'll be able to buy them.

Actually, my problem wasn't so much the type pf weapon owned, as the fact that he was carrying said weapon openly in public.

Quote:

A great question but a thread that ran completely amuck.

Nah, someone mentioned the legality of prostitution...just had to throw in my two cents on the topic. It didn't run amuck, it just...ran.

It's cool there are so many libertarians here...never met one in real life.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 23, 2004 4:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:

I don't care what you own ... only how you use it! In short; every man, every woman, every responsible child, has an absolute, innate, inherent, inalienable, natural, civil, Constitutional, and human right to acquire and own any handgun, any rifle, any shotgun, any machine gun -- ANYTHING! -- and to carry it, openly or concealed, any place, any time, without asking anybodys permission.

While I agree with you, I have to say that this is a conservative, Republican principle. It's also a conservative, Republican principle that your nation can be invaded for having "banned" weapons. Not criticizing you, just pointing that out.

Since when has owning weapons become a conservative republican principle? From my stand point the very term "republican principle" is an oxymoron -- special emphasis on the moron part.

To what do you refer in your second sentence? Iraq possibly? If so, then I've got to agree with you, It is very much a part of the Neo-Con's -- special emphasis on the CON part -- to have an attitude of "do as I say, not as I do."

Of course the democraps aren't any better.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 23, 2004 8:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:

Since when has owning weapons become a conservative republican principle? From my stand point the very term "republican principle" is an oxymoron -- special emphasis on the moron part.

To what do you refer in your second sentence? Iraq possibly? If so, then I've got to agree with you, It is very much a part of the Neo-Con's -- special emphasis on the CON part -- to have an attitude of "do as I say, not as I do."

Of course the democraps aren't any better.

Hey I only know what I read in the paper. And the way I see it, democrats are the only one's pushing gun control, and Republicans are the only one pushing the Iraq war, and implying threats about all the other nations suspected of having weapons. (Except for North Korea, who has been boasting of their "nuclear deterent" for some time now.) I know there's a difference between neocons and old-style conservatives, but I find it more convenient to group them together. By Republican principle I mean "something Republicans in general support."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 23, 2004 8:50 PM

SUCCATASH

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Republicans are the only one pushing the Iraq war...

Why is this?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 23, 2004 9:55 PM

Quote:

Hey I only know what I read in the paper. And the way I see it, democrats are the only one's pushing gun control, and Republicans are the only one pushing the Iraq war, and implying threats about all the other nations suspected of having weapons. (Except for North Korea, who has been boasting of their "nuclear deterent" for some time now.) I know there's a difference between neocons and old-style conservatives, but I find it more convenient to group them together. By Republican principle I mean "something Republicans in general support."

Prolly should have put a "big grin" icon on my post. Sorry 'bout that.

The list of republican Cons (Neo, and Paleo) who have voted for what I call "victim disarmament" is quite long. I don't have the time to sit back, remember, and write them all down, but would you consider the NRA to be a conservative organization?

Here is the record of the NRA:

They gave their approval to the National Firearms Act of 1934:

They helped write the Uniform hand gun law of 1938:

They endorsed and openly campained for the Gun Control Act of 1968:

They sat down with Handgun Control,Inc., and wrote Act 17 -- a gun control law passed in Pennsylvania in 1995 -- and lied to their members about what was in the law:

They endorsed the Brady Bill, came up with their own unconstitutional National Instant Check System, and wrote the Maryland Hand Gun Ban.

I see we use the language a little differently.

When I speak of "principle," I mean a political or philosophical position which is of first importance ... inviolate! By that standard, the only principle the republican party has is -- in my view -- that of getting elected ... by any means necessary!

Shrubya himself has stated that he will sign the renewal of the so-called assault weapon/magazine ban into law if it comes across his desk this year.

When he was Prez, daddy Bush banned the importation of military look alike firearms. And he did it by (unconstitutional) executive order! All on his own!

You are right regarding Iraq. But even then, the republican party has alienated a lot of republican voters on this issue. It's going to be a verrrrry interesting election year.

As I see it, there isn't a zinkys worth of difference between the dems and the reps -- they both want the government to expand.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 24, 2004 2:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:

While I agree with you, I have to say that this is a conservative, Republican principle. It's also a conservative, Republican principle that your nation can be invaded for having "banned" weapons. Not criticizing you, just pointing that out.

I can see where this might be confusing.
If you have a gun, okay, that means you can either use it defensively, or offensively. How do we (meaning the rest of society) know what you are going to do? For most things, we wait and see what you will do, give you the benefit of a doubt.

But, when discussing WMDs there are two problems. First off, its the matter of damage such action can cause. Even if you have a 200 round clip in your assault rifle, you are not going to do that much damage, relative to the total society, before you can be stopped. While 200 dead (assuming you were a perfect shot) might be terrible, its a far cry from the potential damage that can result from a single WMD attack.

The second problem is their small size. One estimate I have read is that if all the antrax that Saddam admitted to having were in powder form and ready to use as a weapon, it would fit in 4-40 pound suitcases. With the ability to infect millions of people.

A nuclear bomb is really not that much different from a regular bomb, except it packs a hell of a lot bigger bang in a far smaller package. Small size make it harder to detect, or stop. While someone walking around with 200 rounds of ammo and a long gun, well that tends to get noticed.

Essentially, because the potential damage is so much greater, even slight risks have to be removed. Even if its a 1 in a million shot that such an attack could occur, all it takes is for that 1 shot to kill millions of folks.

And because of their small size, that makes detection and prevention all that much harder. Which increases the risk of such an attack succeeding.

Plus, in the case of Saddam, he's already shown that he has no compunction against using such weapons. Ask the Kurds.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 24, 2004 2:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:

Not sure I see the similarity. If spend tonight with a whore, how is that the same as you stock-piling ICBMs? It isn't that the latter is a more extreme example of the first; they don't fall into the same category at all!

It depends on who you ask and their particular view of morality. Some do see whores as a threat to civil structures and potential problems with regard to families, the view of sexuality etc. Some see it as more an "internal rot" as opposed to a direct physical danger as represented by my ICBMs.

Which brings up the entire question of where the line should be drawn, which is really what the argument is all about. Some want the line way over there, keeping you from your whores. Some want the line way on the other side, allowing me to keep my missiles. Some want it somewhere in the middle, but defining that middle ground gets tricky, unless you have some kind of rational doctrine concerning "harm" or "threat"

And some are worried we might get together and trade. Some of my missiles for some of your whores

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 24, 2004 2:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:

Hey I only know what I read in the paper. And the way I see it, democrats are the only one's pushing gun control, and Republicans are the only one pushing the Iraq war, and implying threats about all the other nations suspected of having weapons. (Except for North Korea, who has been boasting of their "nuclear deterent" for some time now.) I know there's a difference between neocons and old-style conservatives, but I find it more convenient to group them together. By Republican principle I mean "something Republicans in general support."

As someone who is a Republican, I would kind of like to explain a couple things.

First off, the two big issues to me are guns and taxes. I don't trust other people enough to completely believe that either party, if holding unchecked power, would not devolve into a form of tyranny. So how best to prevent it?

Guns: private ownership gives the people an ability to rebel if needed. (Not necessarily to win a rebellion, but to start one.) The threat alone serves as an addition check on overreaching government power.

Also, since cops can't follow me around all the time, there may come a time when I might have to defend myself. I want the means to do so. Not that I want to use it, the hope is that it serves as a deterent against criminals and such.

Taxes: I understand that certain things have to be done, using a government. Honest cops, judges, strong military, that sort of thing. I think that education can be seen as important enough to warrent some government involvement. And I recognize there is no such thing as a free lunch.

But, Laffer curve aside, higher taxes means more money to the federal coffers, which means giving the government more resources to do more things. Even things I really don't want them to do. So by reducing government funds, you limit government resources and thereby limit the things they can do. Limit the regulations and imposition they can enforce.

[The bug in this thinking is the fact right now we are on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. Because taxes are a product of income, tax rates affect economic activity. High tax rates slow economic activity, and thereby REDUCE government revenues. Lower taxes end up increasing federal revenues, this side of the curve. Even though they are taking a smaller percentage, is smaller of a bigger pie. and hence bigger in total. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but we are seeing it work today.]

So, letting me keep my guns puts a brake on government overreach, lest they piss us off too much. Letting me keep more of my own money not only limits their ability to interfere, but also gives me resources to work within the system to prevent such overreaches.

Heinlein said it best. "Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surely curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."

Right now, the Republicans will let me keep my gun, and lower my taxes. The Democratic party seems intent on higher taxes, and removing my gun. That makes my choice a lot easier.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 25, 2004 1:51 PM

ROCKETJOCK

Interesting; this began as a discussion of whether "Firefly" promotes prostitution, but now has become more of a discussion of whether prostitution ought to be legal.

Let's deal with the questions separately:

(1). "Does Firefly promote prostitution?"
In a word, no. The profession of Registered Companion is technically prostitution, but the social and legal framework in which it is shown to exist is so different from modern western civilization* that it can't be said to promote prostitution in the current sense.

(2) "Should prostitution be legal?"
In a word, yes. One of the few admirable features of the Alliance, IMHO, is the existance of the Companion class. A service contract between two individuals that does not affect others adversely should not be a concern of the government, or law enforcement.

Most of the negative results of prostitution can be directly linked to its illegal status; those that cannot be so linked can be more effectively dealt with in a framework of legality. In Thailand, for example, where prostitution is legal, taxed, and licensed, all sex workers are require to pass a twice-monthly medical exam; this encourages the prostitutes to insist on safe sex, resulting in a remarkably low STD transmittal rate.
By contrast, hookers in the US often refuse to carry condoms for their customers because prophylactics are considered "proof of intent" in most courts. Whether you like the idea of sex for hire or not, it exists, and will continue to exist. The public interest is not enhanced by a legal policy that discourages safe sex.
As for moral arguments, I think it was the apostle Paul who compared prostitution to a sewer; an utterly dirty, filthy, disgusting thing that is absolutely necessary if you don't want to live with consequences that are even more dirty, filthy and disgusting (not the exact wording, of course.) Personally, I don't find the idea of sex-for-hire to be automatically off-putting, but even if you do, the current laws make a bad situation worse.
Final Note: In my travels in various nations, I have noted that the decorative value of individual prostitutes is in direct a direct proportional relationship to the legality of prostitution within a society. -- or, in plain English, "The more legal hooking is, the prettier the hookers."
(This is considered to be a general ivariant, and henceforth is to be known as "RocketJock's 1st law of prostitutional aesthetics.")

--Rocketjock

*Footquote: "Western Civilization? It sounds like a wonderful idea; you should try it."
--Mohandus Ghandi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 25, 2004 6:02 PM

I admit I only wanted to make a sarcastic jab, not invoke a thoughtful discussion. But whatever.

Quote:

Right now, the Republicans will let me keep my gun, and lower my taxes. The Democratic party seems intent on higher taxes, and removing my gun. That makes my choice a lot easier.

Yeah, that viewpoint calls to me. But then I support abortion and gay rights, and hate Bush, so I end up supporting the demoncrats for now. But sooner or later they'll win the presidency, betray me, and I'll be rooting for the GOP.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 25, 2004 6:17 PM