Oh the hypocrisy.
Drugs legalization being trendy, you play the libertarian card. Yet, when it comes to guns or privacy, the same arguments don't hold true anymore.
Cherry picking at its best. Gotta love the HN crowd.
Drugs legalization being trendy, you play the libertarian card. Yet, when it comes to guns or privacy, the same arguments don't hold true anymore.
Cherry picking at its best. Gotta love the HN crowd.
Life is not black and white. A rational person thinks critically about their choices and opinions, and does not decide on something simply because it fits in with some category.
A rational person seeks consistency and doesn't treat every instance of the same problems as different problems deserving their own interpretation and stance toward.
I'm slowly starting to grasp why the system is so complex. People with the resources to make important decisions lack the intellectual rigor necessary to reach a general understanding of things. That's how we end up with legal systems exceeding the complexity of spacecraft software.
Please don't. The "crowd" includes you, and such generalizations are mostly bias.
- Want to legalize drugs.
- Want to ban guns.
- Want a right to privacy.
But my point is that it's in bad taste to diss a community you belong to, while participating in it, as a rhetorical status move. People do this all the time, but we've noticed that it's reliably a marker of low-quality comments, so we're going to start asking them not to.
- I don't think ingesting chemicals or compounds should be illegal but there's probably a benefit to some level of restriction on their sale and use
- I don't think guns should be made illegal but there's probably a benefit to some level of restriction on their sale and use
- I think there should be certain guarantees in terms of privacy but there's probably an argument to be made that these rights can be restricted in some cases for some individuals (ie: in the course of prosecuting a crime)
Either way, it's hard to make blanket statements about complex issues so you get appropriately wishy-washy responses.
Stereotyping everyone in a community is easy but ultimately lazy and somewhat pointless. Unless you're running for office.
I don't know his position on privacy.
And, as others have said, there's no reason for anybody to constrain themselves to one political label. You can agree with libertarians on some things and authoritarians on others, without subscribing to the underlying philosophies of either one.
Much more meaningful to compare hand guns with explosives and other weapons, and drugs with alcohol and generally self-harm.
- Guns can be used for self-harm.
- Drugs can be used to harm others.
Why aren't people ready to accept that people will die?
There's a big difference between "can be used to" and "is designed to".
Cars with top speeds above 85mph are designed specifically to do something (in the USA at least) that society deems harmful. Number of cars ever driven at high speed on tracks or long private roads is minimal and not relevant.
Self defense and hunting are valid reasons to harm other[ creature]s. It does not follow that something should be banned just because it's designed to harm others.
In terms of what various things are designed to do, relative to what society considers acceptable, it makes more sense to keep guns legal than to keep fast speed-limit-exceeding cars legal, or to legalize hard drugs.
- Guns: Designed to be harmful. Can be safe.
I'm not saying that you can't argue that drugs are so dangerous that they should be prohibited or that guns can be safely used and should be allowed. The topic is the same but the starting point is not.
Your examples are of things that are dangerous, not of things that are designed to be harmful.
There are other things that are hurtful and dangerous, and whether something is designed that way by humans or not has no bearing on the utilitarian calculus. Particularly so when there's no categorical imperative against the thing they're designed to do (unless you're against all self defense and hunting).
I fail to see how such general and silly questions foster a debate. No one said or implied those.
> has no bearing on the utilitarian calculus
That's why we need to (wait for it) debate!
> no categorical imperative against the thing
You know what's the problem of the categorical imperative? It's very subjective.
You know how we overcome such subjectivity? (wait for it) debate!
---
My point is simply that in one the harm is direct (designed to) and the other is indirect (can be used to). Due to that the debate between those should be different.
I made no "quantifiable" comparison pal.