I think this is just a fundamental difference of political philosophy. The government definitely does not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Hence the 2nd Amendment. Hence the right to kill in self-defense.
Hmm... I don't think my definition here is controversial but perhaps I'm wrong. I don't think 2nd amendment conflicts with this but I would have to consider this tension more carefully and I don't have any answer. Anybody have thoughts?
Technically the 2nd Amendment is granted by the government to people and so is the right to kill in self-defense. While exercising one's 2nd Amendment right or self-defense right is one's own decision, it is legitimized by the government. That's my way of looking at it.
The government has a monopoly on legitimate use of force, but they license some of that legitimacy to us in certain situations.
Actually the Constitution flows the opposite direction. The Constitution is written by the people for the people and enumerates the powers that are given to the government. The Bill of Rights spells out which rights are inviolable by the government and can never be taken away (although they can be restricted; for gun control, the government can ban the sale of guns to people with a history of violent crime). So you control the monopoly of force, although the government can and does restrict it in many ways.
You must not understand how the state works. Yes, the constitution limits what the government can and cannot do. The government still holds the monopoly of force, not you. You indirectly state this yourself ("although the government can and does restrict it in many ways"). Whenever the government loses the monopoly of force it stops being a functional government.
I think this is just a fundamental difference of political philosophy. The government definitely does not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Hence the 2nd Amendment. Hence the right to kill in self-defense.
Hmm... I don't think my definition here is controversial but perhaps I'm wrong. I don't think 2nd amendment conflicts with this but I would have to consider this tension more carefully and I don't have any answer. Anybody have thoughts?
Technically the 2nd Amendment is granted by the government to people and so is the right to kill in self-defense. While exercising one's 2nd Amendment right or self-defense right is one's own decision, it is legitimized by the government. That's my way of looking at it.
The government has a monopoly on legitimate use of force, but they license some of that legitimacy to us in certain situations.
Actually the Constitution flows the opposite direction. The Constitution is written by the people for the people and enumerates the powers that are given to the government. The Bill of Rights spells out which rights are inviolable by the government and can never be taken away (although they can be restricted; for gun control, the government can ban the sale of guns to people with a history of violent crime). So you control the monopoly of force, although the government can and does restrict it in many ways.
You must not understand how the state works. Yes, the constitution limits what the government can and cannot do. The government still holds the monopoly of force, not you. You indirectly state this yourself ("although the government can and does restrict it in many ways"). Whenever the government loses the monopoly of force it stops being a functional government.
Er, no. Take your logic to an extreme. Does the state give me the right to life and tolerate my survival? No, of course not. People give the government its power. Take that to an extreme. Can people tear down their own government and start from scratch? Yes.
People have the monopoly of force. Government provides the forum through which the process and legitimacy of using force is decided. The restrictions and limitations on force are not powers that the government has to monopolize force, it's a way to prevent violence between citizens or with another country. They're rules that the people decide to impose on themselves, not rules that a class of people get to impose on everyone else.
On July 26 2012 21:49 DoubleReed wrote: As far as drugs are concerned, we should follow Portugals example. Decriminalization for all drugs (and maybe legalization for marijuana). Treat them as medical issues. We need to stop overincarceration.
Aside from incarceration rates decreasing, has this actually helped Portugal at all? It sounds almost like a cop out so they don't have to pay for incarceration.
Yes, it has drastically reduced addiction rates and usage rates, as people who have problems will actually seek help and aren't just further punished by the system.
If you read your article yourself, you will see some interesting phrases, namely: "This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies."
So apart from the legalisation, there are also vastly improved treatment methods, and still all that combined made for only half the estimated number of heavy addicts.
Can it be called is succesfull? It appears it changed almost nothing.
As for the imprisonment, it is the usuall thing, if you dislike the law, go lobby against it instead of violating it and calling it stupid and bad when cought.
I`m also quite surprised by the human stupidity. You get information that drugs usage is bad on almost daly basis. You know that there is significant percentage of population that is drug addict. You know you can get imprisoned for that, and you know that the life of drug addict is miserable.
Still, instead of helping the goverment to make the society better, people want to purchase and use drugs.
Legalization and decriminalization are two different things. Don't confuse them. Distributors are still criminals.
Yes, and decriminalization leads to better treatment due to a change of mindset. They saw it as a public safety issue rather than a criminal issue. We don't treat addicts. We lock them up. When people talk about treatment, we just whine that we don't have enough money, despite how seriously the drug war has ravaged our money.
Under no sense has the policy changed nothing. Vastly increasing the number of people who come forward for treatment is not nothing. It is solely responsible for people seeking treatment and reducing Portugals alarming drug rate. We should seek to adopt such a policy because it is unquestioningly effective at this point.
And unlike you, I care about bettering society. If that means decriminalizing bad things like drugs, then that's what we should do. The way America treats drugs right now is directly harmful to us and needs to stop.
England [sic] is just a small island. Its roads and houses are small. With few exceptions, it doesn't make things that people in the rest of the world want to buy. And if it hadn't been separated from the continent by water, it almost certainly would have been lost to Hitler's ambitions. Yet only two lifetimes ago, Britain ruled the largest and wealthiest empire in the history of humankind. Britain controlled a quarter of the earth's land and a quarter of the earth's population.
I dont think they like him that much after he wrote that, tbh.
Also, I don't really intend on voting this upcoming election because I don't really know anything about either candidate, but if what this article says is true and Romney wants ANOTHER fucking war in Iran, I'll vote for Obama just out of principle.
On July 27 2012 05:07 Saryph wrote: So what are people's opinions on Romney's trip to the UK?
From what I have read day one hasn't worked out so well.
Let's spell out what he did. He suggested in public that London isn't ready for the Olympics tomorrow. They're not but they don't like to be reminded of it.
Apparently its against protocol to mention meetings with the head of MI6? I really don't keep up with things, but a few of the papers seem to be upset about it.
Romney really has got the edge over Obama when it comes to foreign politics it seems - "slightly" upsetting like the whole country on the first day of his tour is pretty much #highskill regarding diplomacy ^_^
He will just turn it into a "no apology for America" tour I bet...
On July 27 2012 05:07 Saryph wrote: So what are people's opinions on Romney's trip to the UK?
From what I have read day one hasn't worked out so well.
Let's spell out what he did. He suggested in public that London isn't ready for the Olympics tomorrow. They're not but they don't like to be reminded of it.
Whatever.
Better place things into context: He said that in the US and quickly reversing his position after he landed and downing street told him to lol.
The guardian doesn't think its going well so far ;p.
Earlier, Romney appeared to forget Ed Miliband's name when they met at Westminster. "Like you, Mr Leader, I look forward to our conversations this morning," Romney said to Miliband as they shook hands.
He also met deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, foreign secretary William Hague and chancellor George Osborne. One meeting was held way from the cameras when Romney was briefed by Sir John Sawers, the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6. This prompted Romney's third blunder of the day when Romney announced in Downing Street that he had met Sawers. Visiting dignitaries tend not to announce when they meet the head of MI6.
On July 27 2012 05:34 Saryph wrote: Apparently its against protocol to mention meetings with the head of MI6? I really don't keep up with things, but a few of the papers seem to be upset about it.
While something like that is sure to hurt independent confidence in Romney, I think it makes far right love him even more. They hate the idea of Europe and want the US to be as far from it as possible. Nonetheless, getting publicly called out and rooted against...dayamn.
On July 27 2012 06:13 Mohdoo wrote: While something like that is sure to hurt independent confidence in Romney, I think it makes far right love him even more. They hate the idea of Europe and want the US to be as far from it as possible. Nonetheless, getting publicly called out and rooted against...dayamn.
The thing is the far right will vote for Romney regardless of what he does because he isnt Obama.
Its the independents that decided elections. not far left/right.
On July 27 2012 06:13 Mohdoo wrote: While something like that is sure to hurt independent confidence in Romney, I think it makes far right love him even more. They hate the idea of Europe and want the US to be as far from it as possible. Nonetheless, getting publicly called out and rooted against...dayamn.
The thing is the far right will vote for Romney regardless of what he does because he isnt Obama.
Its the independents that decided elections. not far left/right.
Not really. People on the far right could not vote at all. In fact I wouldn't be too surprised if this happens for a lot of crazies in the republican party considering that some don't want to vote for Obama but they also don't want to vote for a Mormon.
I think this is just a fundamental difference of political philosophy. The government definitely does not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Hence the 2nd Amendment. Hence the right to kill in self-defense.
Hmm... I don't think my definition here is controversial but perhaps I'm wrong. I don't think 2nd amendment conflicts with this but I would have to consider this tension more carefully and I don't have any answer. Anybody have thoughts?
Technically the 2nd Amendment is granted by the government to people and so is the right to kill in self-defense. While exercising one's 2nd Amendment right or self-defense right is one's own decision, it is legitimized by the government. That's my way of looking at it.
The government has a monopoly on legitimate use of force, but they license some of that legitimacy to us in certain situations.
Actually the Constitution flows the opposite direction. The Constitution is written by the people for the people and enumerates the powers that are given to the government. The Bill of Rights spells out which rights are inviolable by the government and can never be taken away (although they can be restricted; for gun control, the government can ban the sale of guns to people with a history of violent crime). So you control the monopoly of force, although the government can and does restrict it in many ways.
You must not understand how the state works. Yes, the constitution limits what the government can and cannot do. The government still holds the monopoly of force, not you. You indirectly state this yourself ("although the government can and does restrict it in many ways"). Whenever the government loses the monopoly of force it stops being a functional government.
Er, no. Take your logic to an extreme. Does the state give me the right to life and tolerate my survival? No, of course not. People give the government its power. Take that to an extreme. Can people tear down their own government and start from scratch? Yes.
People have the monopoly of force. Government provides the forum through which the process and legitimacy of using force is decided. The restrictions and limitations on force are not powers that the government has to monopolize force, it's a way to prevent violence between citizens or with another country. They're rules that the people decide to impose on themselves, not rules that a class of people get to impose on everyone else.
Of course they can, but as long as they don't, the government has the monopoly of force. If it doesn't then the government doesn't function. Your second paragraph presumes democracy which isn't the only form of government. For a recent example of a government losing the monopoly of force, see Libya. All governments of states have monopoly of force as long as they're functional, and when they don't, they stop working.
So the people in fact do not have the monopoly of force unless they bring down the government first (creating anarchy).
EPT
