"And because the chemical has a nasty tendency to drift to neighboring fields"

Just as drugs -- legalized by one state -- will have a nasty tendency to drift to neighboring states.

legalized by one state -- will have a nasty tendency to drift to neighboring states

Has meth being illegal kept it from gutting the American heartland?

Stupid is as stupid does.

farmers in Arkansas may be forced to take a different approach to managing weeds, probably by growing different crops. Instead of soybeans, farmers may grow more sorghum, rice or other crops.

So, evidently having all those Monocultured eggs in one Monsanto basket wasn't such a good idea. Duh.

"Has meth being illegal kept it from gutting the American heartland?"

Imagine if it were legal.

Imagine if it were legal.

Free Darwin Award with every purchase....

Biotches!

"It is legal in Mexico."

False. Possession of small amounts of meth for personal use has been decriminalized.

"And because the chemical has a nasty tendency to drift to neighboring fields"

Just as drugs -- legalized by one state -- will have a nasty tendency to drift to neighboring states.

Still denying the existence of human volition? Weird.

"Still denying the existence of human volition?"

Quite the contrary. I'm acknowledging it. And I'm saying that, as a society, we decide how we will live and what behavior is unacceptable.

"Every society has a has has a has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816.

Still denying the existence of human volition?"

Quite the contrary. I'm acknowledging it.

By likening the drift of chemicals under the action of wind and diffusion with the movement of drugs under human volition, you do the opposite.

And I'm saying that, as a society, we decide how we will live and what behavior is unacceptable.

"Every society has a has has a has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." -- Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816.

Yet three years later he wrote: "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." (to Isaac H. Tiffany, 4 April 1819)

"Yet three years later he wrote:"

What do you mean "yet"? Do you see a contradiction?

Do you see a contradiction?

There is certainly a contradiction between extending "the fundamental principles of its association" to include a drug ban, on one hand, and "unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" on the other hand.

Now, since Jefferson made the statement you quote in the context of opposing placing on the entire citizenry the burden of protecting the international trade of the few (lcw eb2.loc.gov/service/ms...j1/049/049_0227_0230.pdf) he may well have contemplated no such extension as you make. In that case, cheers for Jefferson and jeers for your misapplication of his words.

"There is certainly a contradiction between extending "the fundamental principles of its association" to include a drug ban, on one hand, and "unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" on the other hand."

Two ways of saying the same thing -- an individual has rights, but others have equal rights. A society is created to set limits.

an individual has rights, but others have equal rights.

I have no "right" to anybody else's sobriety - that's a fictitious "right" like the "right" to health care.

"I have no "right" to anybody else's sobriety ..."

That's an odd way to phrase it.

People in a society have the right to set the rules by which they all agree to live. If those rules are offensive to you, then go live the way you want above the tree line.

People in a society have the right to set the rules by which they all agree to live.

If the majority says no publishing or reading the Bible, or Hayek, that's their right?

"If the majority says no publishing or reading the Bible, or Hayek, that's their right?"

The Muslim society thinks so.

"If the majority says no publishing or reading the Bible, or Hayek, that's their right?"

The Muslim society thinks so.

Are they correct? Would Jefferson agree?

"Are they correct? Would Jefferson agree?"

Correct? It's their society and their country. They read the Koran, not the Bible.

"If the majority says no publishing or reading the Bible, or Hayek, that's their right?"

The Muslim society thinks so.

"Are they correct? Would Jefferson agree?"

Correct? It's their society and their country.

Which doesn't imply they're correct in thinking it's their right to say no publishing or reading the Bible - so you haven't answered the question.

And you didn't even pretend to answer, "Would Jefferson agree?" If, as you seem to imply, there are no bounds to what a society may rightfully fix as "the fundamental principles of its association," then that fixing doesn't "draw limits around" the individual's "unobstructed action according to his will" but simply obliterates it.

"Which doesn't imply they're correct in thinking it's their right to say no publishing or reading the Bible - so you haven't answered the question"

It's their society. They make the rules. "Correct" has nothing to do with it.

And you didn't even pretend to answer, "Would Jefferson agree?"

It's none of his business.

"If, as you seem to imply, there are no bounds to what a society may rightfully fix as "the fundamental principles of its association," then that fixing doesn't "draw limits around" the individual's "unobstructed action according to his will" but simply obliterates it."

You mentioned drugs. Our society says some drugs are legal, some are legal with a prescription, and some are illegal. Those are the limits.

It's disingenuous to focus on just the illegal drugs and conclude that society is obliterating the actions of the individual.

"Correct" has nothing to do with it.

So you're a moral relativist - or nihilist?

'If, as you seem to imply, there are no bounds to what a society may rightfully fix as "the fundamental principles of its association," then that fixing doesn't "draw limits around" the individual's "unobstructed action according to his will" but simply obliterates it.'

You mentioned drugs. Our society says some drugs are legal, some are legal with a prescription, and some are illegal. Those are the limits.

It's disingenuous to focus on just the illegal drugs and conclude that society is obliterating the actions of the individual.

Society's assertion of a "right" to ban whatever they choose is enough to obliterate the rights of the individual, and leave him only perks bestowed as revocable gifts.

"So you're a moral relativist - or nihilist?"

Pot, meet kettle.

"Society's assertion of a "right" to ban whatever they choose is enough to obliterate the rights of the individual, and leave him only perks bestowed as revocable gifts."

Society consists of like-minded individuals who decide what they will ban and what they won't. If you don't like it, Jeremiah, you can leave.

"So you're a moral relativist - or nihilist?"

Pot, meet kettle.

Not at all - I hold with Jefferson that it's immoral for a society to "violate the right of an individual" by "drawing limits around action" that are more restrictive than what is required to defend "the equal rights of others."

You hold that when a Muslim society bans the Bible, '"Correct" has nothing to do with it.'

"Society's assertion of a "right" to ban whatever they choose is enough to obliterate the rights of the individual, and leave him only perks bestowed as revocable gifts."

Society consists of like-minded individuals who decide what they will ban and what they won't.

Bans that are more restrictive than what is required to defend the rights of others are tyranny - specifically, "tyranny of the majority" (as characterized by John Adams, A Defense Of The Constitutions Of Government Of The United States Of America).

"I hold with Jefferson that it's immoral for a society to "violate the right of an individual" by "drawing limits around action" that are more restrictive than what is required to defend "the equal rights of others."

Well then, we agree.

"You hold that when a Muslim society bans the Bible, '"Correct" has nothing to do with it.'

Yep. You're wrongly applying the principles of our society to theirs and making judgements of "correct" or "incorrect" based on them.

You're wrongly applying the principles of our society to theirs

You're a moral relativist - I'm not.

'I hold with Jefferson that it's immoral for a society to "violate the right of an individual" by "drawing limits around action" that are more restrictive than what is required to defend "the equal rights of others."'

Well then, we agree.

No equal right is defended by a drug ban.

"You're a moral relativist - I'm not."

More precisely, a normative relativist. Plus, I don't believe that banning bibles in an Islamic society has anything to do with morality.

I don't believe that banning bibles in an Islamic society has anything to do with morality.

I believe the Word of God has everything to do with morality.

"No equal right is defended by a drug ban."

So the rights of dopers, addicts and tweakers supercede my right to live my life and raise my children in a drug free environment?

"I believe the Word of God has everything to do with morality."

Yes it does. But that's not what we're talking about, is it?

my right to live my life and raise my children in a drug free environment?

If your "environment" includes the interiors of retail establishments, smoke clubs, and private residences, then you have no such "right" - any more than leftist whiners have a "right" to free health care.

that's not what we're talking about, is it?

We're talking about the Bible, which is the Word of God. Forcibly keeping anyone from the Word of God is plainly immoral.

"We're talking about the Bible, which is the Word of God. Forcibly keeping anyone from the Word of God is plainly immoral."

Sorry, the followers of the Koran don't see it that way. And why would you expect them to?

"We're talking about the Bible, which is the Word of God. Forcibly keeping anyone from the Word of God is plainly immoral."

Sorry, the followers of the Koran don't see it that way.

They're wrong.

And why would you expect them to?

Straw man - I don't.

"Sorry, the followers of the Koran don't see it that way."
"They're wrong."

They think you're wrong.

"They're wrong about that too."

Now you sound like tpaine.

"Is tpaine also not a relativist?"

tpaine is a disingenuous asshole who believes the only way is his way.

"So anyone who maintains that forcibly keeping people from the Wo Word of God is absolutely immoral, not just immoral "for me", is a disingenuous as as as asshole who believes the only way is his way?"

Well, I don't think a society which keeps people away from the Word of your God in lieu of their own is immoral and "incorrect".

I said tpaine was a disingenuous asshole. You? You're simply self-righteous.

I don't think a society which keeps people away from the Word of your God in lieu of their own is immoral and "incorrect".

Your non-opposition to Muslim suppression of Christianity is noted.

Anything to say about post #34? It reads:

"my right to live my life and raise my children in a drug free environment?"

If your "environment" includes the interiors of retail establishments, smoke clubs, and private residences, then you have no such "right" - any more than leftist whiners have a "right" to free health care.

So anyone who maintains that forcibly keeping people from the Word of God is absolutely immoral, not just immoral "for me", is a disingenuous asshole who believes the only way is his way? -- ConservingFreedom

Well, I don't think a society which keeps people away from the Word of your God in lieu of their own is immoral and "incorrect". ---- I said tpaine was a disingenuous asshole. You? You're simply self-righteous. --- misterwhite

Your non-opposition to Muslim suppression of Christianity is noted. --- CF

Isn't it amazing that this sites most disingenuous poster, (misterwhite) thinks everyone else is a self-righteous asshole?

To paulsen/white, being clever with words wins all arguments. - - He doesn't have a principled bone in his body.

"Your non-opposition to Muslim suppression of Christianity is noted."

I said nothing about how the religion is applied. You want to go there we can also discuss the Crusades.

"If your "environment" includes the interiors of retail establishments, smoke clubs, and private residences, then you have no such "right"

The drugs would not be confined to "the interiors of retail establishments, smoke clubs, and private residences" and you know it. No more than marijuana is "confined" to Colorado -- as I predicted.

So the rights of dopers, addicts and tweakers supercede my right to live my life and raise my children in a drug free environment? --- misterwhite

Years ago on FR, robertpaulsen used to say, (paraphrased) "the rights of gun nuts supercede my right to live my life and raise my children in a gun free environment?"

--- It's one of the reasons he was banned. -- And arguing with him was one of the reasons I was banned..

So it goes, -- nothing ever changes.

I said nothing about how the religion is applied.

The Bible-banning you don't say is wrong IS an application.

You want to go there we can also discuss the Crusades.

Any wrongs done in the name of Christianity were simply wrong, not merely "wrong for" objectors.

'"If your "environment" includes the interiors of retail establishments, smoke clubs, and private residences, then you have no such "right"'

The drugs would not be confined to "the interiors of retail establishments, smoke clubs, and private residences"

Some would, some wouldn't - those that were would be no violation of your real rights.

"The Bible-banning you don't say is wrong IS an application."

So what? That's not my point. I said their society has the right to decide on their religion. Then you pipe up and you decide whether or not their religion is "correct". What arrogance!

"Some would, some wouldn't - those that were would be no violation of your real rights."

Your solution allows for drugs on the street. Mine doesn't. I prefer my solution to protect my rights and the rights of my family.