The US "drug war" as seen by an arch - conservative

[ehbowen]

My own personal take on the "Drug war:" As of right now, it's not working.

Those who know me personally know full well that I have never been intoxicated in my entire life. Not once. I didn't even have my first drink of alcohol until my fiftieth birthday. I do not seek license to do what I otherwise would not.

Nor am I in favor of blanket "legalization," especially by judicial fiat. The purpose of the law is to define the limits of acceptable behavior within a society, and different communities should have the freedom to draw different lines. What happens in Vegas may not play in Peoria...and vice versa. So I believe that states and communities should have and should exercise the power to draw the lines in order to protect their citizens as they see fit. We can all watch and see what works...and move to and do our business in those jurisdictions where things work better. For that to happen, the current overarching Federal role must end.

With one exception: Interstate commerce and border control is and always shall be properly under the purview of the Federal government. So intoxicants bound for jurisdictions in which their use is legal need to be admitted through ports of entry...PROVIDED that they are properly declared, inspected, and manifested while in transit. Violate those Federal laws and you really do need to be looking at a minimum of twenty years. If someone dies as a result of using the intoxicants you smuggled, you need to swing by the neck until you are dead, dead, dead. If you happen to be outside of the United States, better keep a look out over your shoulder for Force Recon and the Navy SEALs....

(Eric H. Bowen 2018-09-21. Yes, these are my own original words.)

Sent from my STV100-1 using Tapatalk

[Hariti]

OFF TOPIC:
What exactly is an "Arch-conservative" and how is that different from being a normal conservative? I don't think I've ever heard anyone described themselves that way before...

...though now that I think about it, I kinda like the sound of Arch-liberal myself. It has a nice ring to it.

ON TOPIC:

Interesting article, Randal. I personally lean toward the individual freedom side of the spectrum, and as such I don't like letting individual communities take away citizens' rights, but the federal government taking away people's rights on the national level is even worse. If I had to pick between local drug laws and federal drug laws, I would take the latter any day.

I just don't see laws as being designed, as you say, to dictate what is acceptable in a community. The role of laws is to define the limits in which a person may exercise their rights without impeding the rights of others. Any act which doesn't directly affect other people should be, ex post facto, legal and valid. So, driving under the influence of drugs is a fine thing to prohibit, but drug use itself is not, at least according to my own views.

[MadZealot]

As of right now, it's not working.

No screaming shit. Prohibition doesn't work-- it just creates a safe space for illicit markets to flourish. It didn't work with booze, or abortions, and it won't work with the Devil's cabbage. Yet we keep trying the same stupidass approach and expecting a different result.

Nor am I in favor of blanket "legalization," especially by judicial fiat. The purpose of the law is to define the limits of acceptable behavior within a society, and different communities should have the freedom to draw different lines.

This conservative's gotta say "Fuck that" to all this. IMO it's not the government's job to define 'acceptable behaviour'. Its job is to keep us safe, secure our liberties, and provide essential services. We don't want any government-- especially this one-- playing at morality police.

The old mantra goes: "Without government, who would build the roads?" Well, fine, build the roads, but stay the fuck off my lawn.

[Hariti]

This conservative's gotta say "Fuck that" to all this. IMO it's not the government's job to define 'acceptable behaviour'. Its job is to keep us safe, secure our liberties, and provide essential services. We don't want any government-- especially this one-- playing at morality police.

The old mantra goes: "Without government, who would build the roads?" Well, fine, build the roads, but stay the fuck off my lawn.

This Liberal is going to second everything you said in your comment. The government isn't our parent, and it shouldn't police our morality.

It should "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

I'm not sure how telling people which substances to eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise imbibe falls into any of the above categories. I would say the same regarding regulations on what people can say, what they can own, and what they can do to their own bodies.

Moral policing is the purview of dictators, emperors, theocrats, Nazis, and Stalinists, and it's got no place in a democratic, representative republic.

[MadZealot]

This Liberal is going to second everything you said in your comment. The government isn't our parent, and it shouldn't police our morality.

It should "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

I'm not sure how telling people which substances to eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise imbibe falls into any of the above categories. I would say the same regarding regulations on what people can say, what they can own, and what they can do to their own bodies.

Moral policing is the purview of dictators, emperors, theocrats, Nazis, and Stalinists, and it's got no place in a democratic, representative republic.

Well, fuck, here I am seconding your second. Or something.

[Yei]

No screaming shit. Prohibition doesn't work-- it just creates a safe space for illicit markets to flourish. It didn't work with booze, or abortions, and it won't work with the Devil's cabbage. Yet we keep trying the same stupidass approach and expecting a different result.

But couldn't this logic be applied to basically anything that is punished by law? I mean things like murder, theft, rape. They still exist, despite prohibition. Are the laws against them 'stupidass'? Should we get rid of them because it 'doesn't work'?

Now, I'm not saying that prohibiting things like abortion is good. But I think we need a much better argument than 'prohibition bad.'

This conservative's gotta say "Fuck that" to all this. IMO it's not the government's job to define 'acceptable behaviour'. Its job is to keep us safe, secure our liberties, and provide essential services. We don't want any government-- especially this one-- playing at morality police.

Is it possible for a government to keep people safe, secure in their liberties, and provide essential services, without defining 'acceptable behaviour' in some way? I'm thinking of things like road rules, but the principle can be extended to anti-discrimination laws, and anti-bullying laws. Or consumer protection laws perhaps? Hate speech perhaps?

This Liberal is going to second everything you said in your comment. The government isn't our parent, and it shouldn't police our morality.

It should "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Again, I'm not sure how any government could establish justice, unsure domestic tranquillity, or provide for the common defense or promote general welfare, without some kind of shared morality. I mean, what do you even mean my 'morality' in this case?

I'm not sure how telling people which substances to eat, drink, smoke, or otherwise imbibe falls into any of the above categories. I would say the same regarding regulations on what people can say, what they can own, and what they can do to their own bodies.

Have another crack at it. Take smoking for example. Obviously, there is the damage that cigarettes do to the smoker. And that damage may seem obvious now. But in the past people didn't know this. Awareness of smoking danger arose from information campaigns promoted by health organisations and governments. Tobacco companies fought these campaigns tooth and nail, trying to deny the link between cancer and smoking (which they are still doing, btw). Remember also that smoking doesn't just damage the smoker, so the harm cannot be written of as simply 'personal choice,' and not just because nicotine is addictive. There is the danger of second-hand smoke, the loss to families, and the cost of healthcare for smokers. We can apply the same ideas to food and nutrition. Think about the damage done by obesity. Is it wrong for governments to promote good health, nutrition, and exercise to combat the problem? And again, obesity isn't really a choice. Companies spread so much misinformation to sell unhealthy products. Actual nutritional information is only put on food containers because of government regulations. And don't get me started on the damage caused by alcohol. And what about immunisation? That's government mandated. Is it wrong for the government to expect some 'moral standards' to be applied to these issues?

Take this statement:

Interesting article, Randal. I personally lean toward the individual freedom side of the spectrum, and as such I don't like letting individual communities take away citizens' rights, but the federal government taking away people's rights on the national level is even worse. If I had to pick between local drug laws and federal drug laws, I would take the latter any day.

To me this is eerily similar to certain confederate arguments. Remember, at one point states' rights meant a state's right to practise slavery. I know that you don't think that way (as the institution of slavery would certainly go against your emphasis on personal instability), but others do not. Point being, local laws are not always better than federal laws, even if they may be so in the case of drug laws.

[Darkhawk]

No screaming shit. Prohibition doesn't work-- it just creates a safe space for illicit markets to flourish. It didn't work with booze, or abortions, and it won't work with the Devil's cabbage. Yet we keep trying the same stupidass approach and expecting a different result.

Not just creating a safe space: it basically hemorrhages money into the pockets of organized crime.  The mob, once upon a time; these days I understand that a fraction of the profits fund terrorists and others of their ilk.  Prohibition created organized crime in the US, and all of its forms continue to feed the beast.

And if that weren't bad enough, it creates corruption in the enforcers of the law.  Big piles of undocumented money don't all make it into evidence.  Forfeiture into the hands of cops (often before any trial!) is a greater fraction of lost property than actual burglary in the US.  (People lose their cars, their cash on hand, and more, simply for being accused.)  Also, criminals with deep pockets love to buy themselves a DA or two, a couple of beat cops, a judge....

[Hariti]

Again, I'm not sure how any government could establish justice, unsure domestic tranquillity, or provide for the common defense or promote general welfare, without some kind of shared morality. I mean, what do you even mean my 'morality' in this case?

You do that by creating a single definition of what is "just" and what is "injust" and pass laws based on that standard. You never, ever deviate or legislate on issues that fall outside of whatever predefined standard you have created for "justice."

In my opinion, that standard should be that anything that causes measurable physical, financial, or psychological harm to another person, OR which restricts their own freedom of choice, is "injust."

All else is just and fair, and outside the purview of the law.

This isn't a moral standard, it's an agreement between the citizenry of the state to respect one another in exchange for reciprocal treatment. It doesn't matter if murder is "right" or "wrong," it's illegal because it breaks the contract between citizens, to live and let live and to mind your own business.

[Hariti]

Remember also that smoking doesn't just damage the smoker, so the harm cannot be written of as simply 'personal choice,' and not just because nicotine is addictive.

I disagree. Nobody is addicted *before* they smoke their first cigarette. The properties of nicotine have no effect on whether or not a person chooses to use the substance in the first place, they only matter *after* the die has already been cast and the choice has already been made.

There is the danger of second-hand smoke, the loss to families, and the cost of healthcare for smokers.

Second hand smoke is a real problem. I agree with you, and I think that it's actually grounds for legislation. If you can prove, objectively and empirically, that an action harms *other* people rather than just the one who does said action, then it becomes a valid issue for government intervention.

  We can apply the same ideas to food and nutrition. Think about the damage done by obesity.

I've never heard of second-hand obesity. As far as I know, it's impossible for one person's choice to be obese to affect another person's well being. It ONLY harms them, it can't be passed on to their children, and you can't develop health problems just from being around obese people.

  Is it wrong for governments to promote good health, nutrition, and exercise to combat the problem?

No. It would be wrong for the government to prohibit, restrict, prosecute, or otherwise attack the freedom of obese people, though. Spreading information and education is fine, so citizens can make informed decisions. Taking those decisions away, and making them for them, is quite a different story.

Companies spread so much misinformation to sell unhealthy products. Actual nutritional information is only put on food containers because of government regulations.

Yes? How's that relevant to my stance on the issue? I support such regulations. Lying to your fellow citizens in such a way that causes measurable harm should be illegal. That's the thing though; you have to prove it does harm, not just stand behind a podium and declare things "right" and "wrong." Those are totally subjective, and as a result very dangerous, criterion on which to base one's legal system.

And don't get me started on the damage caused by alcohol.

What damage? It harms the user, but drinking itself is not intrinsically harmful to other people.

Drinking and driving hurts people; it's illegal. Drunks sometimes get violent and commit assault or other acts; this is also illegal... that's how it should be. Let people be accountable for their choices; if they chose to drink and drive, or to be belligerent, arrest and prosecute them. If they chose to drink responsibly, leave them alone.

And what about immunisation? That's government mandated. Is it wrong for the government to expect some 'moral standards' to be applied to these issues?

Oh boy, you picked a hot button, divisive topic didn't you? Well, I actually think it should be mandated. Refusing to immunize a child does measurable, empirical harm to said child, and thus violates that child's rights as your fellow citizen. Choosing not to immunize yourself, as an adult, put's your fellow citizens in danger of catching infectious diseases. If you hurt other people, it's a crime, if you don't, it's not. It's a simple concept.

HOWEVER, I will add the cavet that there should be exceptions. This is true of most laws; if you can prove that following the laws impinges upon one of your fundamental human rights, (speech, press, religion, movement, property, assembly, belief, and a few others) you can get an exemption. In the case of immunizations, you should be able to opt out of them if it violates your religious freedom. One has to balance civic safety and individual freedom, and in cases where the threat to other citizens is low (such as in the case of immunization) the law should favor the latter over the former.

To me this is eerily similar to certain confederate arguments. Remember, at one point states' rights meant a state's right to practise slavery. I know that you don't think that way (as the institution of slavery would certainly go against your emphasis on personal instability), but others do not. Point being, local laws are not always better than federal laws, even if they may be so in the case of drug laws.

Trust me, I'm no friend of "state's rights." People have rights; inanimate, impersonal entities such as states should always come second place. They exist to protect citizen's rights, not to strip them away.

I dislike federal laws more than local laws because the federal government has more power to impose unjust laws than local governments do, because it has more money, more manpower, and more firepower.

In essence, I'm more scared of being bullied by the big guy than I am the slightly smaller guy, but I'm still weary of them as well. (After all, in the civil war, when the states decided to fight the feds, who won? Clearly, the federal government is stronger, for good OR for ill, than the state government).

In an ideal world, both the federal government AND the state government would be forbidden from restricting the use of drugs, and other individual freedoms like speech, belief, property, and diet.

I'm just saying that, as a temporary measure, state laws are less harsh and oppressive than federal ones.

To use your own comparison; slavery would have been a hell of a lot worse if it had been legal on the federal level rather than the state level. It would have meant even more people having to endure a hideous violation of their rights, and there would have been less chance of it's eventual abolition due to the absence of safe states for African Americans. I hate slavery, but if I had to choose between a world where half the population allows it and a world where the whole population allows it, the choice would obviously be the former. [/quote]

[MadZealot]

But couldn't this logic be applied to basically anything that is punished by law? I mean things like murder, theft, rape. They still exist, despite prohibition. Are the laws against them 'stupidass'? Should we get rid of them because it 'doesn't work'?

Now, I'm not saying that prohibiting things like abortion is good. But I think we need a much better argument than 'prohibition bad.'

I'm not sure if anti -theft or -rape laws lead to the same kind of organized shitbaggery we've seen in the wake of Prohibition and the so-called War on Drugs.

Also, see DH's reply to my post. Her thoughts pretty much match my own, and she expressed them better than I would've.

[MadZealot]

Is it possible for a government to keep people safe, secure in their liberties, and provide essential services, without defining 'acceptable behaviour' in some way? I'm thinking of things like road rules, but the principle can be extended to anti-discrimination laws, and anti-bullying laws. Or consumer protection laws perhaps? Hate speech perhaps?

Well I'd say any act which does injury to another, and/or infringes on their rights and liberties, would fall outside of what's 'acceptable'.
Road rules, equality under the law, and consumer warning labels all exist to protect people from various forms of injury to their persons or liberties.
What I'm talking about, though, is the sort of 'morality police' who think they need to use govt as a cudgel, to coerce you into living your private life according to their standards. Policing your sexuality, for example-- that's one of the things the 'arch-conservatives' are really good at.

Also, I contend that even hate speech is free speech. If we only protect what's popular, the protection isn't worth much.

[Hariti]

Well I'd say any act which does injury to another, and/or infringes on their rights and liberties, would fall outside of what's 'acceptable'.
Road rules, equality under the law, and consumer warning labels all exist to protect people from various forms of injury to their persons or liberties.
What I'm talking about, though, is the sort of 'morality police' who think they need to use govt as a cudgel, to coerce you into living your private life according to their standards. Policing your sexuality, for example-- that's one of the things the 'arch-conservatives' are really good at.

Well, now I feel silly for writing so much, your response states what I was saying in a much more concise way.

[SunflowerP]

... one person's choice to be obese....

  ... did you intend that to come across the way it does come across? That obesity is always, or at least usually, a choice?

I figured I'd ask you, before I inundated the thread in not-quite-topical links.

In essence, I'm more scared of being bullied by the big guy than I am the slightly smaller guy, but I'm still weary of them as well.

This is a nitpick, and not even properly Some Nits Need To Be Picked other than it being a thing that makes me itch, but since I'm replying to the post anyway... I believe the word you want is 'wary', unless you actually do mean that you're exhausted.

Sunflower

[Yei]

You do that by creating a single definition of what is "just" and what is "injust" and pass laws based on that standard. You never, ever deviate or legislate on issues that fall outside of whatever predefined standard you have created for "justice."

And how do you create this standard without some form of 'moral' standard. How can anyone even have a concept of justice without morality? Is it even possible to create an unchanging standard of 'just' or 'unjust' in the first place. I don't think this approach is practical or realistic.

In my opinion, that standard should be that anything that causes measurable physical, financial, or psychological harm to another person, OR which restricts their own freedom of choice, is "injust."

But what does this actually mean? Is gambling unjust? Should it be illegal because it can cause financial and psychological harm to people? Or would that contradict 'freedom of choice'?

All else is just and fair, and outside the purview of the law.

Are you sure? That covers a lot of potentially dubious behaviours.

This isn't a moral standard, it's an agreement between the citizenry of the state to respect one another in exchange for reciprocal treatment. It doesn't matter if murder is "right" or "wrong," it's illegal because it breaks the contract between citizens, to live and let live and to mind your own business.

I don't really disagree with you here. I think that the reciprocal treatment is actually a very good way to run a society. And furthermore, I also agree that the prohibition of minor drugs like pot is a stupid waste of time and money. However, I think that the issue of 'government morality' and defining 'acceptable behaviour' are a lot more complex and difficult to define than either you or MadZealot realise. There is a huge ambiguity here at what those terms even mean in any practical sense. Take reciprocal treatment for example. We both agree that this is good. But is it a moral position? Does it have moral implications? What happens if someone violates the relationship? And, even if reciprocal treatment is not moral, can individuals attach moral values to the concept?

(It also occurs to me here that we might have to distinguish between morals and ethics)

I disagree. Nobody is addicted *before* they smoke their first cigarette. The properties of nicotine have no effect on whether or not a person chooses to use the substance in the first place, they only matter *after* the die has already been cast and the choice has already been made.

I think you are overrating the power and value of choice. There are so many things in life that we do not have any choice over. We do not chose to be born or to die. We don't chose our genders, or whom we love. It just happens. And there are a whole load of other issues where our ability to chose is compromised by situational factors, ranging from merely practical problems to deep socio-psychological conditioning. I would like to buy a bigger home. I'd like to make the choice but I can't afford it. My choice is compromised. I'd like to get a permanent job, but someone else must decide to hire me. My choice is compromised by factors outside of my control. What happens when people make choices under duress, or with false information? Are they valid choices? Furthermore, the idea of unlimited free choice can be very harmful. It leads to victim blaming. Like saying poor people deserve poverty because they made bad choices. This can be extended to a great variety of crimes and transgressions.

Second hand smoke is a real problem. I agree with you, and I think that it's actually grounds for legislation. If you can prove, objectively and empirically, that an action harms *other* people rather than just the one who does said action, then it becomes a valid issue for government intervention.

Sure, but can you define 'harm'?

I've never heard of second-hand obesity. As far as I know, it's impossible for one person's choice to be obese to affect another person's well being. It ONLY harms them, it can't be passed on to their children, and you can't develop health problems just from being around obese people.

I don't really mean second-hand obesity, that wasn't the point. The point is that issues like obesity affect a lot more people than the obese individual. There are family members who have to deal with the health consequences, the doctors who have to treat weight related diseases, and the health system that has to accommodate overweight individuals. And being obese is not a choice (outside of a Simpson's episode). Who eats a meal specifically to gain fat? Even eating an unhealthy meal may not be a choice. Obesity can be primed in childhood, and children have very little choice in what they eat. They get what they are given, unless they want to scream and cry about it. Even for adults there are lot of reasons why someone may be forced to eat bad food. Lack of time for example. If you are always working, cooking something healthy can be beyond you most of the time. I've experienced this myself. Financial issues can also force one to buy cheaper, less healthy food, over more nutritious offerings. In other cases, people simply don't have access to proper nutritional information. And finally, there is outright deception, where people are lied to.

No. It would be wrong for the government to prohibit, restrict, prosecute, or otherwise attack the freedom of obese people, though. Spreading information and education is fine, so citizens can make informed decisions. Taking those decisions away, and making them for them, is quite a different story.

And I don't disagree with you. However, let's ask a question. Does a government have a moral/ethical responsibility to inform its citizens?

Yes? How's that relevant to my stance on the issue? I support such regulations. Lying to your fellow citizens in such a way that causes measurable harm should be illegal. That's the thing though; you have to prove it does harm, not just stand behind a podium and declare things "right" and "wrong." Those are totally subjective, and as a result very dangerous, criterion on which to base one's legal system.

There are several reason's I brought it up. Firstly, it was mentioned in the context of governments dictating people's behaviour. Now, nutritional information is not exactly force feeding people, but it does show that governments do intervene and influence the way people eat. Second, it helps to challenge the idea of unlimited free choice, by pointing out that the value of choice is dependent on external factors, in this case nutritional information. Third, it is an example of how government regulation can help enhance choice, in this case by ensuring it is informed. I must make it clear however, that I wasn't really attacking your overall stance. I was more providing a brief example of how complexity can change many of the assumptions I have seen about people's opinions on government regulation. I've seen any and all regulation equated with oppression, as though regulation only exists to oppress people, when in fact many regulations make life vastly easier and better for most people (I've also been replaying Bioshock and that might have something to do with it).

On to your next point. I completely agree with you that lying is wrong, that it does harm. However, I take issue with your portrayal of the issue. First, standing behind a podium is politics, and we should think before we conflate politics with government (remember that in the US, the GOP's most fundamental goal is to kill the government). Second, I don't think that 'right' or 'wrong' are subjective, at least not totally. Your opinion on right or wrong are probably influenced by your peers and the culture you live in, and by your experiences, which may or may not have been the result of personal choice. Following on from this, the definition of 'harm' can be very vague. Someone standing behind a podium declaring things to be 'right' or 'wrong' might have reasons why he or she thinks that way, not just moral condemnation. It all depends on how they constitute harm. I'm sure that some conservative pundits could come up with a huge list of reasons as to why pre-marital sex is wrong and causes harm. I wouldn't agree with their conclusions or their solutions, but they could make the argument.

What damage? It harms the user, but drinking itself is not intrinsically harmful to other people.

The health issues that come with obesity have their parallels with alcohol.

Drinking and driving hurts people; it's illegal. Drunks sometimes get violent and commit assault or other acts; this is also illegal... that's how it should be. Let people be accountable for their choices; if they chose to drink and drive, or to be belligerent, arrest and prosecute them. If they chose to drink responsibly, leave them alone.

I fully agree. However, attaching limits to what people can drink, restricting them from doing certain things if they drink and then penalises them for certain actions conducted under the influence. Its not a prohibition by any stretch. Yet, it is an example of a government regulation telling people how to take a substance into their own body. And I think it is one that is fairly reasonable.

Oh boy, you picked a hot button, divisive topic didn't you? Well, I actually think it should be mandated. Refusing to immunize a child does measurable, empirical harm to said child, and thus violates that child's rights as your fellow citizen. Choosing not to immunize yourself, as an adult, put's your fellow citizens in danger of catching infectious diseases. If you hurt other people, it's a crime, if you don't, it's not. It's a simple concept.

And I would agree with you. The reason I picked this example is that immunisation demonstrates the fallacy of individual choice. Not immunising yourself is not simply a choice that one makes for themselves. It can have serious, even fatal, for others. And so it cannot be written off as just an individual choice.

I also take issue with your last line. There are a huge amount of ways to 'hurt other people,' which are perfectly legal.

Trust me, I'm no friend of "state's rights." People have rights; inanimate, impersonal entities such as states should always come second place. They exist to protect citizen's rights, not to strip them away.

I dislike federal laws more than local laws because the federal government has more power to impose unjust laws than local governments do, because it has more money, more manpower, and more firepower.

In essence, I'm more scared of being bullied by the big guy than I am the slightly smaller guy, but I'm still weary of them as well. (After all, in the civil war, when the states decided to fight the feds, who won? Clearly, the federal government is stronger, for good OR for ill, than the state government).

In an ideal world, both the federal government AND the state government would be forbidden from restricting the use of drugs, and other individual freedoms like speech, belief, property, and diet.

I'm just saying that, as a temporary measure, state laws are less harsh and oppressive than federal ones.

This seems to be very cultural opinion. Your are from the US right? USians seem to have a huge fear of their own government, which as an Australian I just don't have.

To use your own comparison; slavery would have been a hell of a lot worse if it had been legal on the federal level rather than the state level. It would have meant even more people having to endure a hideous violation of their rights, and there would have been less chance of it's eventual abolition due to the absence of safe states for African Americans. I hate slavery, but if I had to choose between a world where half the population allows it and a world where the whole population allows it, the choice would obviously be the former.

This is very speculative though. I don't think the Union could have ever been pro-slavery. Remember, it didn't just decide to be anti-slavery one day. It wasn't a choice. The fight against slavery had a long history in the North (and also the South, though less successfully), and there was broad anti-slavery sentiment throughout the elite US population (though less so in the Confederacy, obviously). Furthermore, there were economic and political reasons why the North was moving away from slavery. The British campaign against Atlantic Slavery made it too expensive, while industrialisation favoured wage labour over slavery. Slavery's days were numbered, one way or another.

I'm not sure if anti -theft or -rape laws lead to the same kind of organized shitbaggery we've seen in the wake of Prohibition and the so-called War on Drugs.

Also, see DH's reply to my post. Her thoughts pretty much match my own, and she expressed them better than I would've.

I'd agree with the anti-theft part, but anti-rape laws leave a lot to be desired, or at least they seem so.

Well I'd say any act which does injury to another, and/or infringes on their rights and liberties, would fall outside of what's 'acceptable'.
Road rules, equality under the law, and consumer warning labels all exist to protect people from various forms of injury to their persons or liberties.

What counts as an injury to another? Does it refer to physical harm, or do you include psychological harm? Also, what exactly are people's rights and liberties?

What I'm talking about, though, is the sort of 'morality police' who think they need to use govt as a cudgel, to coerce you into living your private life according to their standards. Policing your sexuality, for example-- that's one of the things the 'arch-conservatives' are really good at.

And this is what it really comes down to isn't it? The debate over freedom and government regulation has largely revolved around sex, gay sex in particular (phwoore!) For the record, I don't have any problem with gay marriage (or 'marriage' as it should be known). But I find that defining 'morality police' around this issue alone (or even drug use for that matter) to be problematic. First, there were many 'moral crusaders' who are not part of the government at all, be they anti-gay, or pro-temperance. These positions often enjoy significant support from substantial portions of the population. Never a majority, but significant enough to influence politics. Second, it feeds into the belief that all regulation exists only to injure and restrict people, ignoring all those times when regulation is helpful, or even necessary. Third, it furthers the conflation of morality with censorship. Moral crusaders and governments did not just take away people's drinks, they also created women's suffrage, regulated industry, child labour laws, and minimum wage, just to name a few. These are ideas that are so mainstream now that we have forgotten that they ever had a moral/ethical foundation.

I would also like to question again the conflation of 'arch-conservatives' with the government, considering how much they seem to hate it. And I think this is also a big issue. People seem to conflate political parties with the government. When one does or says something stupid, the government gets blamed.

Also, I contend that even hate speech is free speech. If we only protect what's popular, the protection isn't worth much.

First, wouldn't hate speech count as an injury to another person? Second, are you conflating anti-defamation/anti-racist positions are protected is because they are popular, rather than because they are morally right?

I want to be clear about this, I don't really disagree with either of you on the faults of prohibition. I think the US position on the drug war is a stupid waste of money and it hasn't worked. However, I think that these kinds of debates raise some troubling issues about how we perceive our relationship with governments, each other, and the world around us. For example, the conflation of regulation with oppression regardless of circumstances, or the elevation of 'individual unlimited choice,' as a value. There is also the 'reduction' of morality/ethics to centre on the issue of sexual orientation and practises, while ignoring the fact that morality covers a whole range of issues.

It is strange that while we agree on the points, we don't agree on the argument, and I suspect this is down to cultural and religious differences. Ideas such as 'freedom' and 'liberty' are just buzzwords over here in Australia, where political debates centre on 'fairness.' Thus, arguments in favour of protecting 'freedom' and 'liberty' don't really tell me much about what you are arguing for.

[Hariti]

... did you intend that to come across the way it does come across? That obesity is always, or at least usually, a choice?I figured I'd ask you, before I inundated the thread in not-quite-topical links.

No. I didn't mean to suggest that obesity is always a choice; oftentimes, it is the result of factors quite outside of one's control.

However, it *can* be a choice, an in such a case, an obese person should not be penalized by the government. I personally happen to be obese, and I consider that a choice. I don't have any major health issues, and I've lost weight a few times in the past, but I find eating healthy to be a chore and don't bother with it. It's not genetics, or lack of access to good food, or any other social or biological factor. It's what I eat, how much I eat, and how little exercise I do, that makes me obese.

I don't need, or want, the government taking away my right to live this way.