|
| Thread: The Liberal Club |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted April 09, 2009 11:22 PM |
|
|
|
I think all drugs (including heroine and cocaine and such) should be decriminalized. Stop the prohibition and you'll break the backs of the drug cartels. I know the Mexican drug cartels pull in 250 billion a year (that's a higher yield than some countries) and a huge bulk of their cash comes from American consumers. I'm sure in other parts of the world there are other drug cartels that make a hefty profit off of it as well. I know the Afghans do and their business is tied in with a lot of Europe and the Americas. I really think our law enforcement should be concentrated in other areas. And besides, just because it's not a legal concern doesn't mean it can't be a medical concern. Maybe I have more faith in people than I should, but I don't think a nation will collapse on itself and everybody will get tripped up on hard drugs if they become decriminalized. The U.S. for example didn't have drug laws until 1917 and the country wasn't drowning from opium and cocaine (and yes, hard drug did exist and were very alive in the 19th century). Portugal decriminalized drugs and their not falling apart.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 09, 2009 11:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Greens have little or nothing to do with the hippy culture I'm afraid. 
EDIT
Mkay. No more spam here then.
Aye, sorry, I generalise off course, just ignore what I said 
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 01:46 AM |
|
|
The Greens seem to be hostile to the carbon tax, so I'll ask this question here: who's in favor of it?
I am.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 01:56 AM |
|
|
I have to admit I haven't really looked into it.
But if I understood it correctly, the basic idea is that the more pollution you produce, the higher the tax you've got to pay?
If that's the case, I can understand that the Greens would see it as selling out the environment, but if money from those additional taxes goes into some sort of environmental funding, it sounds good enough - polluters will pollute anyway, so why not make them at least pay up for doing so?
Maybe that would coerce them to think of more environmentally-friendly means of production.
That's just my opinion based on my limited knowledge on the subject, though.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 03:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But if I understood it correctly, the basic idea is that the more pollution you produce, the higher the tax you've got to pay?
Yeah, that's the general idea. The problem is, the poor would end up paying more of their income than the rich would (it would be regressive, like all sales taxes), but that is easily fixed by adjusting the income tax.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 11:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
the poor would end up paying more of their income than the rich would
What?
How on Earth would it come to that?
If that's the case, then such a law can't be brought until the income tax is fixed.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 12:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
the poor would end up paying more of their income than the rich would
What?
How on Earth would it come to that?
The poor don't got factories, they might have cars tho. HOW THE HELL WOULD THEY TAX MORE?! I want demand an anwser!
Quote:
If that's the case, I can understand that the Greens would see it as selling out the environment.
Bullseye! And that is the exact reason i am against it.
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 12:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think all drugs (including heroine and cocaine and such) should be decriminalized. Stop the prohibition and you'll break the backs of the drug cartels. I know the Mexican drug cartels pull in 250 billion a year (that's a higher yield than some countries) and a huge bulk of their cash comes from American consumers. I'm sure in other parts of the world there are other drug cartels that make a hefty profit off of it as well. I know the Afghans do and their business is tied in with a lot of Europe and the Americas. I really think our law enforcement should be concentrated in other areas. And besides, just because it's not a legal concern doesn't mean it can't be a medical concern. Maybe I have more faith in people than I should, but I don't think a nation will collapse on itself and everybody will get tripped up on hard drugs if they become decriminalized. The U.S. for example didn't have drug laws until 1917 and the country wasn't drowning from opium and cocaine (and yes, hard drug did exist and were very alive in the 19th century). Portugal decriminalized drugs and their not falling apart.
I really think legalizing all drugs, including the strongest ones, is the only way to reduce the drug cartels power.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 02:50 PM |
|
|
Bak:
Yeah, the green tax shift would all have to happen at the same time. As for why it'd be regressive - it's a sales tax, and sales taxes are by nature regressive.
del_diablo:
No anti-liberalism in this thread.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 03:35 PM |
|
|
I don't see how del_diablo is acting anti-liberal.
He's just asking questions. 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 03:40 PM |
|
|
Because he's talking about the carbon tax as if it is "selling out the environment".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 03:59 PM |
|
|
I don't know... Isn't that more of an ethical matter?
I like animals a lot, for example, and maybe I support animal rights. Would that define me as a socialist or liberal? It WOULD make more of a green, but is green socialist or libertarian then?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 04:59 PM |
|
|
Well, you're a liberal, so I suppose that makes you a green liberal?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 05:18 PM |
|
|
Well, it's guessing for us, I suppose... 
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 05:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because he's talking about the carbon tax as if it is "selling out the environment".
And that's why he can't post in a liberal thread?
How liberal of you
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 05:29 PM |
|
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 05:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Because he's talking about the carbon tax as if it is "selling out the environment".
I think of it as if it was in the same stable as that.
And what more about it?
Quote:
It's a liberal club. For liberals to discuss stuff.
Then stop talking about the enviroment. Most of us already agree on drugs and marriage, so the ball is pretty much dead on that part.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 19, 2009 06:05 PM |
|
|
Well, now we're discussing economics. And anyone who talks about "selling out the environment" is clearly not a liberal.
---
But shall we discuss anarcho-capitalism?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 11:05 PM |
|
|
We were talking about law enforcement. There would be protection companies. I said that beggars could be stabbed in the streets, since they wouldn't be able to get protection. (though, unemployment would drop, if there wouldn't be minimum wage, I think) Anyway, you then said that it'd be more efficient, if the bigger protection companies protected areas, so beggars would be safe in those areas.
But what if the protection company would outlaw homeless people on their streets, since there would probably be a court that would adopt that policy and gain profit from people who wouldn't want beggars on their streets (like the obscenely wealthy who tend to live all in the same area). So wouldn't it be possible that poverty would actually be systematically outlawed? that the only choce would be to be forced out or live in total anarchy?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 22, 2009 11:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
live in total anarchy
It is anarcho-capitalism.
The thing about the homeless is, they wouldn't be any worse off than they are now. There'd still be homeless shelters, etc. You make it sound like people can't do that already.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
