5 ms·

> That is what laws inherently are, rules that limit an individuals ability for the greater good of society. Not to be unkind, but this is a simplistic view o

by ferdo 13y ago

> That is what laws inherently are, rules that limit an individuals ability for the greater good of society. Not to be unkind, but this is a simplistic view of law and realpolitiks. As an example, can you honestly say that arresting hundreds of thousands of peaceful weed smokers annually is a "greater good"?

slg 13y ago
I should have thrown the word perceived in there. I don't necessarily think it is for the greater good, but I am not sure if that is the overall perception today and certainly wasn't when those laws were created.
- ferdo 13y ago
  In the 1930's, people traded the liberty of growing hemp for the security of keeping stoned black jazz musicians from raping their daughters (that was one of the reasons put forth by Harry Anslinger[1] in the era). We see how that trade has worked out, much as giving up the liberty of privacy for the security of government oversight of communications has put us where we are now. Point being that the liberty/security trade isn't a false dichotomy. [1] "Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, jazz musicians, and entertainers. Their satanic music is driven by marijuana, and marijuana smoking by white women makes them want to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and others. It is a drug that causes insanity, criminality, and death — the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger
  - tptacek 13y ago
    People have also traded the liberty of selling contaminated meat for the security of minimizing deaths due to foodborne pathogens. That trade seems to have worked out well. People have also traded the liberty of people able to discard carcinogenic industrial waste wherever they please for the security of the world's most reliable potable water delivery systems. That trade seems to have worked out well. He's right, and you're wrong. The simplistic argument is the one that draws a sharp line between security and liberty. It's incumbent on both sides to defend the security/freedom principles on a case-by-case basis.
    - ferdo 13y ago
      > the liberty of selling contaminated meat That's not liberty. That's criminal behavior that stems from criminal thinking. If government has any legitimate function at all, it's to prevent injustice from criminals and other predators. When government becomes the seat of criminality and predation, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? > He's right, and you're wrong. I parse this as, "I agree with him, not you" as these are all just our opinions anyway.
      - chc 13y ago
        > That's not liberty. That's criminal behavior that stems from criminal thinking. You seem to be using an idiosyncratic definition of either "liberty" or "criminal," because this seems to be tautological by the normal definitions. Something being criminal means your liberty to indulge in that thing has been taken away. So you could say this about any behavior — if you are at liberty to do it, it's not criminal, and if it's a crime, you are not at liberty to do it.
        ferdo 13y ago
        > if you are at liberty to do it, it's not criminal, and if it's a crime, you are not at liberty to do it. I perceive it elsewise. If someone abuses their liberty to commit fraud or violence, then they're a criminal. Criminals, by definition, seek to use fraud or force to get their way. Not all things deemed illegal by the State are crimes by any definition except the State's if they have an interest in regulating some form of human behavior or interaction.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Criminals, by definition, seek to use fraud or force to get their way. No, criminals, by definition, commit crimes -- violations of criminal law. > Not all things deemed illegal by the State are crimes by any definition except the State's Nothing is criminal except in regard to a particular code of law. That's what "criminal" means. Criminal neither implies, nor is implied by, "morally wrong".
superuser2 13y ago
Your problem here isn't with government, it's with Republicans (and conservative Democrats) who do believe that arresting pot smokers is a greater good.

by ferdo 13y ago

slg 13y ago

I should have thrown the word perceived in there. I don't necessarily think it is for the greater good, but I am not sure if that is the overall perception today and certainly wasn't when those laws were created.

ferdo 13y ago
In the 1930's, people traded the liberty of growing hemp for the security of keeping stoned black jazz musicians from raping their daughters (that was one of the reasons put forth by Harry Anslinger[1] in the era). We see how that trade has worked out, much as giving up the liberty of privacy for the security of government oversight of communications has put us where we are now. Point being that the liberty/security trade isn't a false dichotomy. [1] "Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, jazz musicians, and entertainers. Their satanic music is driven by marijuana, and marijuana smoking by white women makes them want to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and others. It is a drug that causes insanity, criminality, and death — the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind." http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger
- tptacek 13y ago
  People have also traded the liberty of selling contaminated meat for the security of minimizing deaths due to foodborne pathogens. That trade seems to have worked out well. People have also traded the liberty of people able to discard carcinogenic industrial waste wherever they please for the security of the world's most reliable potable water delivery systems. That trade seems to have worked out well. He's right, and you're wrong. The simplistic argument is the one that draws a sharp line between security and liberty. It's incumbent on both sides to defend the security/freedom principles on a case-by-case basis.
  - ferdo 13y ago
    > the liberty of selling contaminated meat That's not liberty. That's criminal behavior that stems from criminal thinking. If government has any legitimate function at all, it's to prevent injustice from criminals and other predators. When government becomes the seat of criminality and predation, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? > He's right, and you're wrong. I parse this as, "I agree with him, not you" as these are all just our opinions anyway.
    - chc 13y ago
      > That's not liberty. That's criminal behavior that stems from criminal thinking. You seem to be using an idiosyncratic definition of either "liberty" or "criminal," because this seems to be tautological by the normal definitions. Something being criminal means your liberty to indulge in that thing has been taken away. So you could say this about any behavior — if you are at liberty to do it, it's not criminal, and if it's a crime, you are not at liberty to do it.
      - ferdo 13y ago
        > if you are at liberty to do it, it's not criminal, and if it's a crime, you are not at liberty to do it. I perceive it elsewise. If someone abuses their liberty to commit fraud or violence, then they're a criminal. Criminals, by definition, seek to use fraud or force to get their way. Not all things deemed illegal by the State are crimes by any definition except the State's if they have an interest in regulating some form of human behavior or interaction.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Criminals, by definition, seek to use fraud or force to get their way. No, criminals, by definition, commit crimes -- violations of criminal law. > Not all things deemed illegal by the State are crimes by any definition except the State's Nothing is criminal except in regard to a particular code of law. That's what "criminal" means. Criminal neither implies, nor is implied by, "morally wrong".

superuser2 13y ago

Your problem here isn't with government, it's with Republicans (and conservative Democrats) who do believe that arresting pot smokers is a greater good.