Harvard Economist: Legalizing Drugs Suits Ideal of American Freedom

[Bentleys]

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.

relationship of an individual to an authority which is the government

The individual should decide (of course) for his own destiny and fate,
but there are also things called "the common good" whereas some should
sacrifice in order for the betterment of the entire.

Let us say, I am so liberated to choose, Okay...
I will ask my Dad, "I wish to become a doctor"
then how is it when my Dad would reply, you have a lot
of sibling that I still have to support, "Is it okay for you just to settle in pharmacy".

So after all the freedom is not there after all
if you are governed,
Then is it possible if you are
not governed and still get what you need nowadays?

I could say freedom is really an illusion,
and somehow used as scapegoats to those
who wishes to sway from the common rules,(designed to justify the common needs of everyone)
one of such is drug abuse.

[7DMM]

yeah right. talking about freedom na sad but nobody talking about responsibility.

[emow]

1. The individual should decide (of course) for his own destiny and fate,
but there are also things called "the common good" whereas some should
sacrifice in order for the betterment of the entire.

Let us say, I am so liberated to choose, Okay...
I will ask my Dad, "I wish to become a doctor"
then how is it when my Dad would reply, you have a lot
of sibling that I still have to support, "Is it okay for you just to settle in pharmacy".

2. So after all the freedom is not there after all
if you are governed,
Then is it possible if you are
not governed and still get what you need nowadays?

3. I could say freedom is really an illusion,
and somehow used as scapegoats to those
who wishes to sway from the common rules,(designed to justify the common needs of everyone)
one of such is drug abuse.

1. In your example, the individual who wishes to become a doctor is constrained by his current circumstance of having insufficient resources. Other than that factor, are there external authorities that would stop him from studying medicine? Does that mean that his incapacity to finance his education is a sign of deficiency in freedom? I find your example realistic, and as such, there are countless examples who pursued their education inspite of being insufficient in resources, because they have the freedom to do what they need to do to reach what they want to reach.

It would be a different case if the father would say " son, you should be a doctor!" or " daughter, you should marry Bentley." There is an external authority impeding your ability to decide for your own fate. How could another individual superimpose his authority over your own authority over your own body?

2. Yes, freedom is not there if an egalitarian central authority such as the government we have right now is continuing in its endeavor to strive for the common good. There is no common good. That is an illusion. Nobody can clearly mark the common good. It is a meaningless expression of self-righteous do gooders. "for the good of the Filipino people.... for the good of the country... for the good of the nation.... for the good of the community...." these are nonsense talk.

3. Yes, freedom can be an illusion. Freedom can be real. What common rules are we talking about? Rules made by self righteous men on how each other men below them should behave including their respective private affairs? I am very much interested in discovering the "common rules." Please expound and be clear with what the common rules contain.

[emow]

yeah right. talking about freedom na sad but nobody talking about responsibility.

true. freedom and responsibility should go together. Too bad we like our government to provide us with never ending social safety nets that would absolve us of our faulty choices in life. Democracy is a farce.

[Bentleys]

1. In your example, the individual who wishes to become a doctor is constrained by his current circumstance of having insufficient resources. Other than that factor, are there external authorities that would stop him from studying medicine? Does that mean that his incapacity to finance his education is a sign of deficiency in freedom? I find your example realistic, and as such, there are countless examples who pursued their education inspite of being insufficient in resources, because they have the freedom to do what they need to do to reach what they want to reach.

The default is there,
he is dependent upon his father to pursue what he really wanted
he does not have the needed resources that is why he approach.
He is not really free at all, he is a superhuman that
he could always provide for himself if that need do arise. Sad to
say but we do have deficiencies, we do need help and assistance
sometimes and even if it is so excessive, I could say all the time.


It would be a different case if the father would say " son, you should be a doctor!" or " daughter, you should marry Bentley." There is an external authority impeding your ability to decide for your own fate. How could another individual superimpose his authority over your own authority over your own body?

Just because it is not assured that we do have all the means all the time.
We do need to have an assistance in abeyance to aid us whenever a need would arise.


2. Yes, freedom is not there if an egalitarian central authority such as the government we have right now is continuing in its endeavor to strive for the common good. There is no common good. That is an illusion. Nobody can clearly mark the common good. It is a meaningless expression of self-righteous do gooders. "for the good of the Filipino people.... for the good of the country... for the good of the nation.... for the good of the community...." these are nonsense talk.

I beg to disagree,If I may,
for as a Filipino people and a race we do have aspirations to prosper,
one of the common good that I wish to cite. We should do it as a whole
It's our freedom toghet away from this bondage of poverty but still not
a freedom at all for we are resorting towards another bondage which is to
uplift the quality of living and there's a lot of precursor to that not to mention
dependent to those who have resources to do business in our country
so on and so forth.

3. Yes, freedom can be an illusion. Freedom can be real. What common rules are we talking about? Rules made by self righteous men on how each other men below them should behave including their respective private affairs? I am very much interested in discovering the "common rules." Please expound and be clear with what the common rules contain.

One of such is the justice system,
bringing equality of rights so on and so forth.
Regulates the commonalty preventing chaos
and anarchy.

[emow]

In your example, the individual who wishes to become a doctor is constrained by his current circumstance of having insufficient resources. Other than that factor, are there external authorities that would stop him from studying medicine? Does that mean that his incapacity to finance his education is a sign of deficiency in freedom? I find your example realistic, and as such, there are countless examples who pursued their education inspite of being insufficient in resources, because they have the freedom to do what they need to do to reach what they want to reach.

1. The default is there,
he is dependent upon his father to pursue what he really wanted
he does not have the needed resources that is why he approach.
He is not really free at all, he is a superhuman that
he could always provide for himself if that need do arise. Sad to
say but we do have deficiencies, we do need help and assistance
sometimes and even if it is so excessive, I could say all the time.


It would be a different case if the father would say " son, you should be a doctor!" or " daughter, you should marry Bentley." There is an external authority impeding your ability to decide for your own fate. How could another individual superimpose his authority over your own authority over your own body?

2. Just because it is not assured that we do have all the means all the time.
We do need to have an assistance in abeyance to aid us whenever a need would arise.


Yes, freedom is not there if an egalitarian central authority such as the government we have right now is continuing in its endeavor to strive for the common good. There is no common good. That is an illusion. Nobody can clearly mark the common good. It is a meaningless expression of self-righteous do gooders. "for the good of the Filipino people.... for the good of the country... for the good of the nation.... for the good of the community...." these are nonsense talk.

3. I beg to disagree,If I may,
for as a Filipino people and a race we do have aspirations to prosper,
one of the common good that I wish to cite. We should do it as a whole
It's our freedom toghet away from this bondage of poverty but still not
a freedom at all for we are resorting towards another bondage which is to
uplift the quality of living and there's a lot of precursor to that not to mention
dependent to those who have resources to do business in our country
so on and so forth.

Yes, freedom can be an illusion. Freedom can be real. What common rules are we talking about? Rules made by self righteous men on how each other men below them should behave including their respective private affairs? I am very much interested in discovering the "common rules." Please expound and be clear with what the common rules contain.

4. One of such is the justice system,
bringing equality of rights so on and so forth.
Regulates the commonalty preventing chaos
and anarchy.

1. The limitation of that individual is not because of any impediment to the exercise of his liberties, but that he choose to operate within the constraints of his financial situation. I see many men who find ways to achieve things inspite of poverty and physical defects. Both examples showcase the exercise of freedom. Bottomline, they operated with their conscious decision to find ways or to settle what is.

2. Do you have any authority to impose your will on another individual concerning that individuals private affairs?

3. What a collectivist principle you have shown. Patriotism will not do the world any good. The place you were born is just by chance. I don't hold so much value for anything that is by chance.

Filipinos need not sacrifice there own individual aspirations for the good of the country. Otherwise, that would be communism. Are you hinting such an idea?

4. Regulates commonality? what do you mean? like that of the Islamic state governments?

[Bentleys]

1. The limitation of that individual is not because of any impediment to the exercise of his liberties, but that he choose to operate within the constraints of his financial situation. I see many men who find ways to achieve things inspite of poverty and physical defects. Both examples showcase the exercise of freedom. Bottomline, they operated with their conscious decision to find ways or to settle what is.

After all liberty in that sense is not really absolute for
still we are dependent, the word asking connotes bondage
not free, dependent upon the suggestion of others either
to concur or not.

2. Do you have any authority to impose your will on another individual concerning that individuals private affairs?


If they ask me through my authority,
them truly I am. What if I'm the justice system
then someone agrieve approach me for fairness,
by then I do have influence on their private affairs.

3. What a collectivist principle you have shown. Patriotism will not do the world any good. The place you were born is just by chance. I don't hold so much value for anything that is by chance.


By chance or not still we have to continue existing,
that is our main purpose in life, mostly if there are life
that is depending upon us (that's when responsibility sets in)
Without patriotism then there would be no driving force behind
to fill in what is lacking, I figure out, would lead into becoming destitute sort of,
for the country and eventually a grieve effect towards its inhabitants.

Filipinos need not sacrifice there own individual aspirations for the good of the country. Otherwise, that would be communism. Are you hinting such an idea?

No we call it heroism,
and they are very well being gratified.


4. Regulates commonality? what do you mean? like that of the Islamic state governments?

Of course it should be regulated
when you talk about millions and even nowadays billions,
what will happen if you just leave that multitude believing only
with their freedom and not following a common norm or law,
only the strongest,the wise, and the brave would remain?
how about the rights of others the weak ones, they do have the right
to exist, I think so.

[Dorothea]

That guy is clearly smoking crack.

[LytSlpr]

Mo hits usa ko para makatubay ko ani nga thread. Asa na man to akong desoxyn ug adderall beh.. LMFAO!

[TwoStepsFromHeLL]

nindot ang idea. ambot lang pud kaha unsay epekto if legal na. pero i guess it is worth a try sa U.S.. . murag naay life timeframe nga e-legal nila ang drugs and observe unsa ang epekto, if maayo then go sa legal, if ni worst then e-illegal ug balik