Freedom to do whatever you want can only go so far. Alcohol and cigarettes are only legal because they were discovered and turned into big business long before governments started thinking "hang on a minute, this might be harmful to people", and prohibition would cause an economic shift that would likely leave the country in ruins.
I repeat the question then: should EVERYTHING that can be classed as 'harmful to people' be forcibly withheld from them? Should people not be able to make mistakes, or harm themselves? And if that's what you truly believe, do you happily accept the government as the owner of your body and your life?
Either way, you're clearly a political extremist, and extremists are A) almost impossible to argue with and B) half the problem with the world as it is.
I'm suggesting a world of voluntary interaction. If that makes me an extremist in your eyes, fine. I think your support for violent aggression against innocent people is extreme too, you extremist.
The question I have for you is where do you draw the line? Should Iran be allowed nuclear weapons just because it is the freedom of a few people at the top of government to do so, even if the potential for usage as weaponry infringes on the rights of millions more? Nobody should be allowed to "learn the hard way" if learning the hard ware harms somebody else who has no control over the events.
In my ideal world, there would be no 'Iran' as we know it, because presumably people within that territory would secede from governmental control as is their right, and there would be no contiguous state in that area, unless every single person desired it and signed their freedom away to Ahmedinejad and his boys in a contract. Let's take the unlikely view that it did happen, yes, I would be happy for them to own nuclear weapons, but they would know they had another 50 pointed at them by the rest of the world, civilized people would pay for peace-keeping spies to infiltrate their weapons plants and defence forces, and in truth, their main nutters would probably be assassinated. That would be wrong and illegal if they hadn't committed a crime, but is the way of the world, and I'm sure few rational people would shed a tear. So I am morally against the sort of preventative measures you speak of when lives are truly at stake, but I can sympathize with people who'd betray such values because they genuinely feared for their lives or those of others.
The only reason people want to "get high" anyway is because life is so horrifically miserable for so many people and they aren't willing to put the effort in to make their lives better. Too busy blaming external factors for their misery instead of doing something about it.
The only reason people want to "go to the countryside" anyway is because life is so horrifically miserable for so many people and they aren't willing to put the effort in to make their lives better. Too busy blaming external factors for their misery instead of doing something about it.
Marko, you can't tell people why they do something, they themselves know. I wouldn't say my life is miserable at the moment. And I drink quite regularly, and have dabbled elsewhere, as do millions of others. I don't think the world has ever generally been a happier place since the last 100 years, and yet substance use has spiked in that time. Probably because people don't want life to be BORING and ruled by some father-knows-best government which rules their life for them and tells them what's good and bad for them, like you seem to think yourself qualified to do.
Unfortunately the only way to ensure there are no innocent victims in "victimless" activities like owning a gun for no good reason is to stop people from owning guns.
Unfortunately the only way to ensure there are no innocent victims in "victimless" activities like owning a hammer for no good reason is to stop people from owning hammers. Preventative kidknapping of people in my opinion is a fascistic suggestion. Do you approve of the Police arresting Leeds fans before they even go to the game, just to prevent disorder, because they suspect there'd be 'victims'? How about closing down nightclubs and pubs because there's usually scraps and drug use in them on a weekend? Or invading China, because they have a terrible human rights record? All similarly 'logical' instances of preventative arrest.
Also, if you haven't checked recently, carrying a knife around is a crime, as it is classed as an offensive weapon.
Yep, and the only people the ban/amnesty has affected are the innocent ones who were doing it out of fear anyway. The true dickheads don't care what PC Plod has to say on the matter, and continue to stab with impunity, but with even less resistance from their unarmed victims.
Not comparable to the gun issue. Falacious to try to do so.
What is the intended purpose of each?
What are the numbers involved in deaths from guns and knives?
Self-protection and hunting are the purpose of knives and guns. Not that this point of intention means anything. A murderer could easily make his own gun or knife and take it out in public, and everyone knows where you can get a piece if you want one, from a gun dealer or by joining the Police/military or by getting a permit as a farmer. Guns are not outlawed in the UK by any means. It's the nature of our society that stops sprees like in the USA and Finland, which, while freer are still more ruralized and fundamentally depressed countries.
What are the numbers involved with deaths from cars and guns? BAN THE AUTOMOBILE IN CASE ANYONE EVER HURTS THEMSELF!
I entirely agree. Somebody walks into a school with a knife, it's not a ranged weapon and thus they are easier to neutralise. Thrown a table at their head and they are pretty much ****ed. Bullets go through tables.
If schools had proper security (an unfortunate encumberment, but seemingly a necessary one), these shooting sprees wouldn't happen as often there. I think it's a shame that our country has based its law and order system around centralized power and CCTV, because the true power to defend oneself should rest with the people who actually need weapons for protection. Protection from both fellow citizens and from illegitimate government infringements on their life. Or is that not a worry to you (you know, that thing they call tyranny?)
