On April 25 2011 11:55 Sky0 wrote: If you have a problem with our laws then move out of oklahoma, move out of the united states for all i care. You live in a country thats given you the chance to live a great life more then most people in this world can say and youre complaining cause you can use and illegal drug legally. Theres people dieing all over the world and this is what you people are arguing about. GETTING HIGH!??? seriously grow up accept it or move to another country.
Lol.
And we are just exercising (and loving) our freedom to express our views, whether or not they agree with the law. If nobody debated or protested current or future laws, then they would probably end up being some pretty shitty laws.
On April 25 2011 11:55 Sky0 wrote: If you have a problem with our laws then move out of oklahoma, move out of the united states for all i care. You live in a country thats given you the chance to live a great life more then most people in this world can say and youre complaining cause you can use and illegal drug legally. Theres people dieing all over the world and this is what you people are arguing about. GETTING HIGH!??? seriously grow up accept it or move to another country.
You are an idiot. Accept that people are dieing because of the socioeconomic concept of "the west" and that there's a bigger picture than "your country- my country" as if it wouldn't interact with each other. In Mexico people get killed every day because of US drug laws you moron.
It really is depressing how naive and brainwashed the vast majority of people are when it comes to the subject of drugs and prohibition, and how blindly they accept the violent arrest and imprisonment of people as a valid "solution" to the "drug problem." People just do not comprehend when they say that "Drug X should be illegal" what the ramificiations of this are. They think "X is bad for society and it would be irresponsible for the government didn't make it illegal. Think of the message sent to the children!". But what they don't realize is that they are truly saying "State police powers should be used to violently harass, arrest, and jail people using X, and if they attempt to resist being deprived of their freedom, they should be killed." Like it or not people, this is the reality of prohibition. It is a brutal and maniacal system. Government has no place using coercive measures to control which substances people can and cannot put into their bodies. Stop blindly supporting economically-backwards, tyrannical drug laws and do some critical thinking of your own, people, for fucks sake. The modern war on drugs is one of the greatest human rights tragedies of the modern era.
"Patriots" who tell people to keep silent and leave the country if they don't like it, are in truth traitors. There is no higher form of patriotism, than to endeavour to improve the country in which you reside.
On April 25 2011 11:55 Sky0 wrote: If you have a problem with our laws then move out of oklahoma, move out of the united states for all i care. You live in a country thats given you the chance to live a great life more then most people in this world can say and youre complaining cause you can use and illegal drug legally. Theres people dieing all over the world and this is what you people are arguing about. GETTING HIGH!??? seriously grow up accept it or move to another country.
Lol.
And we are just exercising (and loving) our freedom to express our views, whether or not they agree with the law. If nobody debated or protested current or future laws, then they would probably end up being some pretty shitty laws.
Or did I just feed the troll? =[
No you're not feeding the troll, this is how people from Ok are.
They still think Americas in a great depression, and apparently you should be happy only getting paid minimum wage for pretty much every job out there.
On April 25 2011 06:10 Thorakh wrote: Alright calling democracy the most 'retarded' form of rule was me exaggerating a lot. It definitely isn't. However, it's still a very bad form of rule. I am also not excluding myself from the 'too dumb to vote' crowd since everyone is too dumb to vote.
You cannot expect people to know every in and out of a wide variety of topics that pop up in ruling a country. Most people are not even trying, hell, I've seen people not wanting to vote on Obama just because he is black. People voting on candidate X because he talks nice, people not voting on mister Y because he isn't in the same 'camp'.
Okay, onwards to the quote. The argument for democracy isn't that "everyone makes good decisions". The argument is that everyone's will is heard, and accounted for. However many other problems democracy may or may not have you can't really dispute this. I should note that there are less than perfect democrasies, and lots of them, where everyones will is not accounted for because of lack of proportional representation. The US is a perfect example of this.
There are no good democracies. (Most) people don't have the knowledge and expertise required to make anything close to an educated vote. Therefore, bad decisions are made all the time. Politicians only care about getting more people to vote on them and therefore will make decisions that please the dumb masses, making everything worse.
Furthermore, if you think democracy is stupid because people are stupid then why are you so sure you are right? Aren't you too stupid to realize that you are wrong? I mean you should be included in the people, just as everyone else.
I'm not too dumb to realise that we all are dumb and cannot make good decisions with our flawed everyday reasoning, media masshyping stuff that isn't even real, media completely missreporting science all the time, politicians that only care about themselves and short term stuff and the list goes on and on.
Honestly guys, I expected better from you, how you can truly believe democracy is a good system is beyond me. Even if it sounds a little cheesy, a council of old wise men is the best practical form of government. The masses do not know what is good for them, their neighbours, whole of mankind and the planet itself. They should not be allowed to vote.
Also, I'm sorry to have completely derailed this thread from the topic of marijuana and the Oklahoma law.
MARIJUANA WOOHOO OKLAHOMA STUPID!
Seriously, you think that removing the political elites and replacing them with a new set of "technocratic" elites will improve the state of affairs? Wishful, but foolish.
The role of government should be reduced to the prevention of fraud and force. All laws and agencies who do not fit within this strict scope should be abolished.
On April 25 2011 11:55 Sky0 wrote: If you have a problem with our laws then move out of oklahoma, move out of the united states for all i care. You live in a country thats given you the chance to live a great life more then most people in this world can say and youre complaining cause you can use and illegal drug legally. Theres people dieing all over the world and this is what you people are arguing about. GETTING HIGH!??? seriously grow up accept it or move to another country.
Lol.
And we are just exercising (and loving) our freedom to express our views, whether or not they agree with the law. If nobody debated or protested current or future laws, then they would probably end up being some pretty shitty laws.
Or did I just feed the troll? =[
No you're not feeding the troll, this is how people from Ok are.
They still think Americas in a great depression, and apparently you should be happy only getting paid minimum wage for pretty much every job out there.
On April 25 2011 20:44 AKspartan wrote:Seriously, you think that removing the political elites and replacing them with a new set of "technocratic" elites will improve the state of affairs? Wishful, but foolish.
Why is it foolish? Because the masses won't accept it? They probably won't, but that doesn't make it foolish. As I've said before, I don't expect a system like this to work anytime soon. Not with the problems the world has today. On the other hand, a system like this would greatly help in reducing these problems.
The role of government should be reduced to the prevention of fraud and force. All laws and agencies who do not fit within this strict scope should be abolished.
Who is going to build roads then? Who is going to provide poor people with afordable healthcare? Who is going to make sure companies aren't running rampant, destroying the environment? Who is going to make sure minimum wages exists and workers won't be exploited by companies? Really, I've never heard a more idiotic statement than that, sorry.
I have never said only scientists would be on a council, the most important part is that there are intelligent people on the council, people that are willing to see the other side of the argument and willing to change their opinion if there is enough credible evidence presented to suggest their opinion is wrong. This is in stark contrast with governments today, they do what they think will give them most votes next election. They are only thinking about the short term, which is bad. Essentially, they are following the wishes and ideas of the general public. However, the ideas and wishes of the general public are more often than not based on unfounded opinions, bias to certain topics, mediahyping and an unwillingness to accept other views on a subject. One of the most important skills a person can have is critical thinking and being able to see through media hypes.
You want to go back to an aristocratic government, and i do not agree with that. One reason is captured in this quote i remember from my history class: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Yes, power corrupts. This is also why a council should not consist of a few people. It should consist of thousands of scientists and others each specialized in a certain field of interest. They should be chosen by the scientific community (how this should work would have to be debated). Also, to make it more connected to the general public, one could also devise a system where half of the council is elected by the general public and the other half consists of scientists and others. In my view this would be a fair compromise between democracy and techno/aristocracy.
Well, as one of the lesser developed states I'm not really shocked. Thats just my 2 cents though, take it or leave it. Sooner or later they will be burning the blunts too.
On April 25 2011 20:30 AKspartan wrote: Government has no place using coercive measures to control which substances people can and cannot put into their bodies. Stop blindly supporting economically-backwards, tyrannical drug laws and do some critical thinking of your own, people, for fucks sake. The modern war on drugs is one of the greatest human rights tragedies of the modern era.
Sometimes, general publics just doesn't know what is good or bad for them. I'm not saying marijuana is harmful like opium, I'm merely pointing out the fact that governament should have the right to do so, should they regulate marijuana is another topic itself.
Eh, once more of generation x and y gets older and seeps their way into politics herb will eventually be less taboo. At least the people who haven't bought into the whole War on Drugs/let's overpopulate our prisons lol-trocity.
The current baby boomers and their parents grew up around a lot of very demonizing anti-drug propaganda. They are inclined to be less open minded about the topic. Until they um, get out of the way, not much progress will be possible.
On April 25 2011 20:40 vetinari wrote: "Patriots" who tell people to keep silent and leave the country if they don't like it, are in truth traitors. There is no higher form of patriotism, than to endeavour to improve the country in which you reside.
On April 25 2011 11:55 Sky0 wrote: If you have a problem with our laws then move out of oklahoma, move out of the united states for all i care. You live in a country thats given you the chance to live a great life more then most people in this world can say and youre complaining cause you can use and illegal drug legally. Theres people dieing all over the world and this is what you people are arguing about. GETTING HIGH!??? seriously grow up accept it or move to another country.
Lol.
And we are just exercising (and loving) our freedom to express our views, whether or not they agree with the law. If nobody debated or protested current or future laws, then they would probably end up being some pretty shitty laws.
Or did I just feed the troll? =[
No you're not feeding the troll, this is how people from Ok are.
They still think Americas in a great depression, and apparently you should be happy only getting paid minimum wage for pretty much every job out there.
But.. But..
I'm from OK too =[
Then you probably agree with my statement, don't you lol :S.
On April 25 2011 21:13 Thorakh wrote: Yes, power corrupts. This is also why a council should not consist of a few people. It should consist of thousands of scientists and others each specialized in a certain field of interest. They should be chosen by the scientific community (how this should work would have to be debated). Also, to make it more connected to the general public, one could also devise a system where half of the council is elected by the general public and the other half consists of scientists and others. In my view this would be a fair compromise between democracy and techno/aristocracy.
I agree, but I'd rather see representatives of the working class, e.g. trade unionists overwhelmingly represented in such a council -- they are the vast majority of the population and the needs of the working poor should be a nation's first priority. The problem most people would have with what you suggest is that 'intelligent scientists' for example, are often from privileged backgrounds who can afford the costs of education and might be unrepresentative of the majority of the nation -- though I don't mean to imply that educated scientists are evil, just that the language of 'intelligence' and 'technocracy' can easily be distorted through politics.
EPT
