Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: October 28 2008
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13628
Posted: January 17 2011 at 13:42
The T wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
What would the size of the country have to do with anything? You seem to assuming order has to come from a central authority. Otherwise I'm not sure why the size matters.
It has a lotto do.
I studied (personally) cases of small communities in the Peruvian Andes, that self regulated without participation of the Government, but as soon as they grew the problems started, because the more people in a community, the more perceptions about how a society must work.
They all had to create at least a way to decide what is the best for the community to work...In this moment, the laws started to exist, and when they created laws, somebody to enforce those decisions, a Government was formed.
Iván
Isn't it a better idea to leave those communities to self-regulate themselves than pretending that a central authority will be able to understand and best decide what is best for them? You say size becomes a problem, then the solution apparently is for just one single entity to control this entire big thing? I think that the bigger the community, the more it should be self-regulated since it becomes quite difficult to manage it from a central position.
Post of the year so far Regrettably, the movement in modern times, by governments of left & right, is for more and more central regulation and control.
I personally am proud to be a left wing libertarian socialist. I utterly despair, though, at the modern left when they feel that virtually every facet of our lives requires some form of central regulation and policing. That is not socialism, it is marxist/leninist, which I regard as being entirely separate, failed, entities.
The right, if anything, are far worse. They are so in hoc to the large corporations that they have lost sight of what it means to be a human being and the simple joys of a happy simple life.
BTW, in answer to the thread title, I don't take any drugs whatsoever, aside from those the doctor prescribes to me. I do, however, believe in illicit drugs being legalised and regulated by local authorities (note the local bit). If people wish to take the stuff, if they do not harm others, and if they are prepared to pay their dues, then why deny them?
Enhance your life. Get down to www.lazland.org
Now also broadcasting on www.progzilla.com Every Saturday, 4.00 p.m. UK time!
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: January 17 2011 at 13:55
Padraic wrote:
This discussion seems quite beside the point, doesn't it? The question on the table is the legalization of the drug.
But the only way to answer the question with any coherence is to base it on actual principles instead of just gut beliefs. In the second case, someone would be more entitled to argue that is just a bunch of potheads wanting to legalize the green stuff...
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Posted: January 17 2011 at 15:40
The T wrote:
Isn't it a better idea to leave those communities to self-regulate themselves than pretending that a central authority will be able to understand and best decide what is best for them? You say size becomes a problem, then the solution apparently is for just one single entity to control this entire big thing? I think that the bigger the community, the more it should be self-regulated since it becomes quite difficult to manage it from a central position.
You don't get the point no?
The central Government wouldn't be happier if this communities self regulated themselves (We don't have enough money to take care of them), as a fact the central Government doesn't care for them, they have been abandoned for ever.
With 100 families, they were able to make reunions and decide what to do with their products, they knew themselves, so there was no criminality.
But they grew, people from the capital started to buy their products, so they had to sign contracts, they asked Lima for a Peace Judge and some lawyers in order to protect their interests, so the Justice Ministry entered into the community with their laws and functionaries.
After some years this wasn't enough, because they had to buy modern machinery, they asked for a bank with credits to give them money, but the banks wouldn't go to the middle of nowhere, without somebody to protect them and their money, so the Government installed military posts
But Banks weren't enough, they asked for money from the central Government, and the government gave them money but also had to legalize their authorities like Mayors, Governors, etc and this authorities had to inform Lima what they did with the money paid by all the Peruvians.
They built schools, they asked for teachers, so the Education Ministry also entered in the communities.
Because of the low temperatures, children started to, die, they asked for a hospital, and the Government built one for three or four communities, so the health ministry also entered with their authorities and regulations and a pólice station to protect the doctors and the facilities paid with the money of all Peruvians..
And that's how they're utopia ended, if they wanted to be a small village with enough resources to barely survive, they could do it by themselves, but if they want to grow, they need the rest of the country and their authorities.
But that's not all, God knows that the Government doesn't want to spend money in this villages, but Sendero Luminoso attacked some towns, they gave the peasants some rifles and formed urban patrols, in order to allow the communities to defend themselves
But Sendero had support of foreign countries and modern weapons, so they massacred all the towns with urban patrols (comuneros) and the Government had to install more than 1,000 military posts in this cities with our money.
Things are not as easy as the theory says, nobody can survive without a Government unless you are so small that nobody cares for you.
You no longer live in this part of the world T, you don't know how things are.
Iván.
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 17 2011 at 15:41
Joined: May 05 2009
Location: Land of Enchant
Status: Offline
Points: 84
Posted: January 17 2011 at 15:51
We are all fallible, including our benevolent masters making decisions for us in our respective capitals. I believe that they should endeavor to err on the side of liberty rather than on the side of authority.
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Posted: January 17 2011 at 16:01
I almost forgot Equality.
You said that legalizing drugs, the black market would vanish.
False, alcohol has always been legal on Peru, but a lot of people die every week, because they drink illegal alcohol that is sold incredibly cheap in marginal urban zones.
There's also the fraudulent Pisco industry, a bottle of this Peruvian liquor costs no less than US$ 10.00, but everywhere you can buy illegal Pisco for 1 or 2 bucks the bottle, the problem is that it's made with sugar and destroys your brain.
I recently read that USA was having problems with illegal alcohol imported from Eastern Europe, and it was a big problem involving millions of dollars, not talking about illegal distilleries.
So.....Isn't alcohol legal?
Then how according to your theory the black market hasn't vanished?
What about Absinthe?
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 17 2011 at 16:04
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: January 17 2011 at 16:55
Trying to make things very short, going for your last words Ivan:
You don't live in the US. Maybe your arguments about little communities in Peru don't apply here. But market laws apply everywhere. And personal principles should apply everywhere. This is a discussion about legalization of a substance here in the US after all.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: January 17 2011 at 17:18
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
The T wrote:
Trying to make things very short, going for your last words Ivan:
You don't live in the US. Maybe your arguments about little communities in Peru don't apply here. But market laws apply everywhere.
Very clearly. You entered the entire debate of marijuana legalization from your perspective. Then the debate moved to the rule of law and you entered the example of the little communities and how when they become big they have to be regulated. Your example is also alien to this debate, if we are to say so. Maybe people in the US are much more likely to respond well to a non-governmental society than yours, because of many factors. Of course people in the end is people everywhere, and freedom should be advocated for everywhere. But the current marihuana debate is about a particular country, and examples of the chaos that lack of government brought in another country might not be the ideal ones...
Anyway I was just using your last argument but reversed, since you said I shouldn't talk about things in the south of America because I don't live there anymore. I say maybe the same idea should apply to you?
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
Posted: January 17 2011 at 17:27
The T wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
The T wrote:
Trying to make things very short, going for your last words Ivan:
You don't live in the US. Maybe your arguments about little communities in Peru don't apply here. But market laws apply everywhere.
Very clearly. You entered the entire debate of marijuana legalization from your perspective. Then the debate moved to the rule of law and you entered the example of the little communities and how when they become big they have to be regulated. Your example is also alien to this debate, if we are to say so. Maybe people in the US are much more likely to respond well to a non-governmental society than yours, because of many factors. Of course people in the end is people everywhere, and freedom should be advocated for everywhere. But the current marihuana debate is about a particular country, and examples of the chaos that lack of government brought in another country might not be the ideal ones...
Anyway I was just using your last argument but reversed, since you said I shouldn't talk about things in the south of America because I don't live there anymore. I say maybe the same idea should apply to you?
I didn't move it, it was Equality with his criticism against laws, morals, etc,
But is important to us because as a region we use to follow what USA does (mainly due to our dependence), we would probably be legalizing it very soon, with the extra problem that .it's produced in our countries, so we would be flooded in drugs
Now, United States historically has decided what is better and what is worst for the rest of the world, if they don't like a Government, they overthrown the President, why can't we give an opinion?
The drug legalization problem is universal, while the situation in communities is something so particular that you can't talk about if you haven't been there.
BTW: How does USA people, from a country where almost everything is regulated,. can know more than us about non regulation?, At the most they know as much as us for their studies, but they haven't lived it while we have or had it in many aspects.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 17 2011 at 17:32
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: January 17 2011 at 17:33
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
The T wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
The T wrote:
Trying to make things very short, going for your last words Ivan:
You don't live in the US. Maybe your arguments about little communities in Peru don't apply here. But market laws apply everywhere.
Very clearly. You entered the entire debate of marijuana legalization from your perspective. Then the debate moved to the rule of law and you entered the example of the little communities and how when they become big they have to be regulated. Your example is also alien to this debate, if we are to say so. Maybe people in the US are much more likely to respond well to a non-governmental society than yours, because of many factors. Of course people in the end is people everywhere, and freedom should be advocated for everywhere. But the current marihuana debate is about a particular country, and examples of the chaos that lack of government brought in another country might not be the ideal ones...
Anyway I was just using your last argument but reversed, since you said I shouldn't talk about things in the south of America because I don't live there anymore. I say maybe the same idea should apply to you?
on.
I didn't move it, it was Equality with his criticism against legality, and since we use to follow what USA does (mainly due to our dependence), we would probably be legalizing it very soon, with the extra problem that .it's produced in our countries, so we would be flooded in drugs
I don't think so. It's speculation. Nowadays, you don't see everybody as an alcoholic, do you? Even though alcohol is legal, people know it's not that great to put alcohol before your job, your family, etc. And those that choose to drink like crazy wouldn't be stopped by illegalization of alcohol. In fact their situation would be worsened, since they would have to go to a black market, would have to seize every opportunity they have, and ultimately end in jail, becoming phds in crime.
Now, the drug legalization problem is universal, while the situation in communities is something so particular that you can't talk about if you haven't been there.
Also, it doesn't then work as an example or a model to work the present argument.
But you made my point, Market Laws are universal, ans a market needs regulation from the state, at least to stop abuse.
I still defend minimal regulation, but I'm starting to realize it does more harm than good.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: January 17 2011 at 17:46
stonebeard wrote:
lol T bringing up market laws. You are so libertarian now.
I'm nothing if not a man in search for the answer...
That sounded so ridiculous. Oh crap, let's say it: I'm realizing it makes much more sense than I though it did... Cognitive schemas were ruining my abilities to understand it...
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: January 17 2011 at 22:06
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
I almost forgot Equality.
You said that legalizing drugs, the black market would vanish.
False, alcohol has always been legal on Peru, but a lot of people die every week, because they drink illegal alcohol that is sold incredibly cheap in marginal urban zones.
The fact that the substance you mentioned is illegal means that it hasn't been legalized, so your example in no way counters my statement.
Ivan wrote:
There's also the fraudulent Pisco industry, a bottle of this Peruvian liquor costs no less than US$ 10.00, but everywhere you can buy illegal Pisco for 1 or 2 bucks the bottle, the problem is that it's made with sugar and destroys your brain.
Now you bring up a case where apparently the government pushes the price of a good to 10x it's market price, and you wonder why a black market appears? That may as well be a prohibition.
Ivan wrote:
I recently read that USA was having problems with illegal alcohol imported from Eastern Europe, and it was a big problem involving millions of dollars, not talking about illegal distilleries.
So.....Isn't alcohol legal?
Then how according to your theory the black market hasn't vanished?
What about Absinthe?
Iván
Where did you read this exactly? News to me.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: January 18 2011 at 08:11
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
BTW: How does USA people, from a country where almost everything is regulated,. can know more than us about non regulation?, At the most they know as much as us for their studies, but they haven't lived it while we have or had it in many aspects.
Iván
For much of our history it wasn't that way. Regulation as we know it today started with the progressive movement and was helped along by the two world wars.
I think it's fairly safe to say that people in the US tend to dislike and distrust government more so than those in other countries.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.316 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Should marijuana be legalized?
Topic Options
The T wrote:
Regrettably, the movement in modern times, by governments of left & right, is for more and more central regulation and control.
