Harvard Economist: Legalizing Drugs Suits Ideal of American Freedom

[emow]

Work in a company and just follow your rules
not that of the company,I'm sure you'll get your
separation pay on the next day.
Something harmful should be dealt accordingly,
otherwise no need to have health cares,
just be born, follow what you want
be with drugs,
and die a free man.

A certain level of common sense must be maintained in dealing with libertarian ideologies. A company is another separate entity with its own rights and privileges. You apply for one, you should be agreeable to its rules and regulations beforehand just like when you visit a house of another person.

If something harmful is dealt to OTHERS, then that should be dealt accordingly. If a person harms himself in his endeavors, then let him be. Better to die a free man than to live like a chess piece.

[firestarter]

Gibawal bitaw na sa una ang liquor. Pag legalize na no. 1 cause of road accidents na.. Unsa kahay ma number 1 ani if i legal nani.

I agree sa pot head and his stupid idea.

[Vanillaskies]

Lets just say will take his suggestions for about a year, then lets see the increase curiosity of people, usa nako ana. HAHA

Btw, i doubt coz going through this would be easy money, i think kanang mga bigatin na negosyante sa pinas musulod na ani nga business.

[Bentleys]

A certain level of common sense must be maintained in dealing with libertarian ideologies. A company is another separate entity with its own rights and privileges. You apply for one, you should be agreeable to its rules and regulations beforehand just like when you visit a house of another person.

If something harmful is dealt to OTHERS, then that should be dealt accordingly. If a person harms himself in his endeavors, then let him be. Better to die a free man than to live like a chess piece.

I could see an irony (sorry to say this),
in libertarian ideologies, Are they truly free?
or are they just acting being free, is the freedom
to choose, choosing what? another form of bondage
clinging to a certain principle, then where is the freedom in that.

We are even governed with natural laws,
I guess we would never be free, but slaves of our own
shortcomings for we are not yet and would never be absolute
in what we wish and what we want.

If you take drugs and took it just because you are
quite free to do it and know beforehand that it leads to
self destruction is not freedom but insanity.
It defies the purpose of placing more emphasis
on the importance of each individual.

[LytSlpr]

...and totally expose the reality of the dilapidation of the american society, not to mention, culture. being free from one thing is actually being a slave to another, it's all just semantics really.

[emow]

I could see an irony (sorry to say this),
in libertarian ideologies, Are they truly free?
or are they just acting being free, is the freedom
to choose, choosing what? another form of bondage
clinging to a certain principle, then where is the freedom in that.

We are even governed with natural laws,
I guess we would never be free, but slaves of our own
shortcomings for we are not yet and would never be absolute
in what we wish and what we want.

If you take drugs and took it just because you are
quite free to do it and know beforehand that it leads to
self destruction is not freedom but insanity.
It defies the purpose of placing more emphasis
on the importance of each individual.

Choose to harm or benefit our own selves. That is freedom. The freedom to improve one self, and the freedom to destroy one self. And by having that principle of minding my own business, i am already a slave? A slave to my own principles? Can a man be called a salve to his own by acting out what he believes in?

"We are even governed with natural laws,
I guess we would never be free, but slaves of our own
shortcomings for we are not yet and would never be absolute
in what we wish and what we want."


We can never be slaves of our own shortcomings. You are too loose in using the word "slave." We can only be slaves of the shortcomings of others. If we suffer from our own shortcomings, that is part of individual responsibility, part of freedom.


"If you take drugs and took it just because you are
quite free to do it and know beforehand that it leads to
self destruction is not freedom but insanity.
It defies the purpose of placing more emphasis
on the importance of each individual"

Insanity is part of freedom then. What defies the purpose? What purpose are you talking about? The individual defines his own purpose, whether for the better or for the worse. There is no greater emphasis on the importance of an individual than acknowledging that the individual has the full power to exercise what benefits or destroys him.

[Bentleys]

Choose to harm or benefit our own selves. That is freedom. The freedom to improve one self, and the freedom to destroy one self. And by having that principle of minding my own business, i am already a slave? A slave to my own principles? Can a man be called a salve to his own by acting out what he believes in?

Still a slave of your needs,
either it's a need to destroy yourself (perhaps rational)
or by improving (which is ideal)
You acted because of what free to act,or is it there is a need
that's why you acted?, and I could not see freedom when you are
dictated. see the point, freedom as it is is just an illusion.

We can never be slaves of our own shortcomings. You are too loose in using the word "slave." We can only be slaves of the shortcomings of others. If we suffer from our own shortcomings, that is part of individual responsibility, part of freedom.

Is individual responsibility controlling you
or not, are you free from individual responsibility?


Insanity is part of freedom then. What defies the purpose? What purpose are you talking about? The individual defines his own purpose, whether for the better or for the worse. There is no greater emphasis on the importance of an individual than acknowledging that the individual has the full power to exercise what benefits or destroys him.

I think that is the total freedom that one is looking for "insanity"
when the stricken is incapablae anymore to define what he needs,
and therefore not anymore a slave of the self.


As long as the self is in need you are always a slave
towards other entity as well, for you do not have all the things
that yourself needs.

[emow]

Choose to harm or benefit our own selves. That is freedom. The freedom to improve one self, and the freedom to destroy one self. And by having that principle of minding my own business, i am already a slave? A slave to my own principles? Can a man be called a salve to his own by acting out what he believes in?

1. Still a slave of your needs,
either it's a need to destroy yourself (perhaps rational)
or by improving (which is ideal)
You acted because of what free to act,or is it there is a need
that's why you acted?, and I could not see freedom when you are
dictated. see the point, freedom as it is is just an illusion.

We can never be slaves of our own shortcomings. You are too loose in using the word "slave." We can only be slaves of the shortcomings of others. If we suffer from our own shortcomings, that is part of individual responsibility, part of freedom.

2. Is individual responsibility controlling you
or not, are you free from individual responsibility?


Insanity is part of freedom then. What defies the purpose? What purpose are you talking about? The individual defines his own purpose, whether for the better or for the worse. There is no greater emphasis on the importance of an individual than acknowledging that the individual has the full power to exercise what benefits or destroys him.

3. I think that is the total freedom that one is looking for "insanity"
when the stricken is incapablae anymore to define what he needs,
and therefore not anymore a slave of the self.


4. As long as the self is in need you are always a slave
towards other entity as well, for you do not have all the things
that yourself needs.

1. A "slave" to one's needs is a different discussion to a slave to other people. You cannot see freedom if someone is dictated? True. Do you consider one's mind as a master that enslaves the individual?

2. I don't know what you are trying to drive at, it seems we are on a different discussion or you are pettifogging the issue from the main thought of my discussion.

3. i'm at a loss of comprehending at what you are trying to convey.

4. We don't have all the things we need. But we have the liberty to pursue the things we want and the things we need. A slave doesn't have that liberty.

[Bentleys]

1. A "slave" to one's needs is a different discussion to a slave to other people. You cannot see freedom if someone is dictated? True. Do you consider one's mind as a master that enslaves the individual?

2. I don't know what you are trying to drive at, it seems we are on a different discussion or you are pettifogging the issue from the main thought of my discussion.

3. i'm at a loss of comprehending at what you are trying to convey.

4. We don't have all the things we need. But we have the liberty to pursue the things we want and the things we need. A slave doesn't have that liberty.

Freedom to choose is not really freedom at all,
for we only cater things from sources, hereby becoming
dependent, if you are dependent are You Free?
you must follow the rules to where you are depending upon
or else you will not get what you need.

[emow]

Freedom to choose is not really freedom at all,
for we only cater things from sources, hereby becoming
dependent, if you are dependent are You Free?
you must follow the rules to where you are depending upon
or else you will not get what you need.

I believe you should be more clear in your ideas. I find it hard to respond to the vagueness of the ideas you have posted, somehow i find it irrelevant to the main thought of the entire discussion. You are fusing two loosely related concepts into a discussion which deals with the relationship of an individual to an authority which is the government. Who is more entitled to decide the fate of an individual for himself? Other men or that person himself.