5 ms·

>the best argument (not only for cannabis, but for stronger drugs too) is that illegalization has been tried for a long time and it just doesn't work. This is

>the best argument (not only for cannabis, but for stronger drugs too) is that illegalization has been tried for a long time and it just doesn't work. This is a pragmatic perspective, but if you care I will share a principled one. I think the bigger problem is with the principle of individual liberty. What right has a king or bureaucrat to order armed thugs to enter my home and tell me what plants I can or can't eat, smoke, or whatever? I also think if you look at history, one of the most glaring lessons is that authoritarianism "has been tried for a long time and it just doesn't work."

WhompingWindows 8y ago
"I also think if you look at history, one of the most glaring lessons is that authoritarianism 'has been tried for a long time and it just doesn't work.'" This isn't really true from a historical viewpoint. By far the most common societal regime in history is empire, nearly all totalitarian empires, from the Babylonian totalitarian kings/emperors on forwards to the Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, Aztecs, Incas, etc. If you want more on this, refer to the writings of Yuval Harari in his book Sapiens, as well as podcast with Sam Harris, where he lays out how empire is indeed the most frequent/stable regime we've devised. While I make no claim for the superiority of any particular governmental regime, totalitarianism has worked for itself for thousands of years, proving itself out far more than democracy has yet to do. If we look to the height of democracy in the USA, it had not even existed for 100 years before a savagely brutal civil war to end slavery, the scars of which are still open sores upon our American psyche. In a totalitarian regime, it may have been possible to dispatch slavery in a far less bloody and scarring manner. Therefore, I do not agree that history has shown totalitarianism to not work, perhaps you care to elaborate. I ask you then, which other democracy or form of govt is truly the shining example that you would point to?
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  > In a totalitarian regime, it may have been possible to dispatch slavery in a far less bloody and scarring manner. Under every other regime (except perhaps Haiti) slavery was "dispatched" without a bloody civil war. And the US civil war wasn't fought over slavery as they want you to believe, freeing the slaves was merely a byproduct of the war between the industrialized north and agrarian south (mostly) over tariffs.
  - ModernMech 8y ago
    > And the US civil war wasn't fought over slavery as they want you to believe, As who want you to believe? Because if you read the declarations of succession and the words of senators from confederate states at the time, they clearly cite slavery and "property" (read: slaves) rights.
    - wallace_f 8y ago
      That's true, the south's wealthy leadership was fighting to keep their slaves as their wealth depended on it. But Lincoln, and before him, Jackson, specifically said the northern aggression towards the south was not because of slavery. Jackson even made a very explicit statement that exactly this was happening, and that slavery was only a "pretext" and not the real reason. That is reality though it is very unfortunate that humans can often be like this.
    - UncleEntity 8y ago
      > As who want you to believe? The winners (who always write history). They say it was "the war to free the slaves" but before the southern states seceded the federal government had no intention of starting a civil war and in fact had no legal basis to conduct military operations on US soil even if they wanted to forcefully end slavery. > Because if you read the declarations of succession... It's painfully obvious the southern states wanted the institution of slavery to continue but they knew that having been outlawed in the territories that its days were numbered, they would easily be outvoted as new states were formed and slavery would be (peacefully) ended. And, no, I'm not some kind of pro-slavery crazy person it's just one of my many pet peeves that it's taken as dogma that was the justification for the US government to invade the southern states when slavery was ended everywhere else on earth without a massive civil war.
  - gilrain 8y ago
    "They" being every credible historian of the era, I guess? C'mon.
- failrate 8y ago
  In a totalitarian regime, every citizen is a slave.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  >While I make no claim for the superiority of any particular governmental regime, totalitarianism has worked for itself for thousands of years, proving itself out far more than democracy has yet to do. I was speaking with an assumption of prosperity and liberty as inherent virtues in humanity. You seem to be suggesting that other forma of governance, totalitarianism, is better because it has existed for longer periods of time.

WhompingWindows 8y ago

"I also think if you look at history, one of the most glaring lessons is that authoritarianism 'has been tried for a long time and it just doesn't work.'" This isn't really true from a historical viewpoint. By far the most common societal regime in history is empire, nearly all totalitarian empires, from the Babylonian totalitarian kings/emperors on forwards to the Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, Aztecs, Incas, etc. If you want more on this, refer to the writings of Yuval Harari in his book Sapiens, as well as podcast with Sam Harris, where he lays out how empire is indeed the most frequent/stable regime we've devised. While I make no claim for the superiority of any particular governmental regime, totalitarianism has worked for itself for thousands of years, proving itself out far more than democracy has yet to do. If we look to the height of democracy in the USA, it had not even existed for 100 years before a savagely brutal civil war to end slavery, the scars of which are still open sores upon our American psyche. In a totalitarian regime, it may have been possible to dispatch slavery in a far less bloody and scarring manner. Therefore, I do not agree that history has shown totalitarianism to not work, perhaps you care to elaborate. I ask you then, which other democracy or form of govt is truly the shining example that you would point to?

UncleEntity 8y ago
> In a totalitarian regime, it may have been possible to dispatch slavery in a far less bloody and scarring manner. Under every other regime (except perhaps Haiti) slavery was "dispatched" without a bloody civil war. And the US civil war wasn't fought over slavery as they want you to believe, freeing the slaves was merely a byproduct of the war between the industrialized north and agrarian south (mostly) over tariffs.
- ModernMech 8y ago
  > And the US civil war wasn't fought over slavery as they want you to believe, As who want you to believe? Because if you read the declarations of succession and the words of senators from confederate states at the time, they clearly cite slavery and "property" (read: slaves) rights.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    That's true, the south's wealthy leadership was fighting to keep their slaves as their wealth depended on it. But Lincoln, and before him, Jackson, specifically said the northern aggression towards the south was not because of slavery. Jackson even made a very explicit statement that exactly this was happening, and that slavery was only a "pretext" and not the real reason. That is reality though it is very unfortunate that humans can often be like this.
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    > As who want you to believe? The winners (who always write history). They say it was "the war to free the slaves" but before the southern states seceded the federal government had no intention of starting a civil war and in fact had no legal basis to conduct military operations on US soil even if they wanted to forcefully end slavery. > Because if you read the declarations of succession... It's painfully obvious the southern states wanted the institution of slavery to continue but they knew that having been outlawed in the territories that its days were numbered, they would easily be outvoted as new states were formed and slavery would be (peacefully) ended. And, no, I'm not some kind of pro-slavery crazy person it's just one of my many pet peeves that it's taken as dogma that was the justification for the US government to invade the southern states when slavery was ended everywhere else on earth without a massive civil war.
- gilrain 8y ago
  "They" being every credible historian of the era, I guess? C'mon.
failrate 8y ago
In a totalitarian regime, every citizen is a slave.
wallace_f 8y ago
>While I make no claim for the superiority of any particular governmental regime, totalitarianism has worked for itself for thousands of years, proving itself out far more than democracy has yet to do. I was speaking with an assumption of prosperity and liberty as inherent virtues in humanity. You seem to be suggesting that other forma of governance, totalitarianism, is better because it has existed for longer periods of time.