[sammynorton90]

It seems to me like a lot of liberals just want the 'social liberalism' that comes with being a liberal. They think that being a liberal means you believe people should pretty much be able to do whatever they want, without taking the possible consequences into consideration. That's not liberalism, that's anarchy or libertarianism.

I'm all for social freedoms, I support same-sex marriage and adoption etc, but a lot of modern day 'liberals' take their belief in social freedom too far. They want to be able do whatever they want, even if it's obvious it will have a negative affect, on them and society.

You get people who believe they should be able to take as many drugs as they like and call the government 'fascists' for making them illegal. They don't take into consideration the affect it has on society as a whole. It's not just done to annoy them and take away their 'freedoms' it's because you end up with whole cities in Mexico run by drugs lords, and whole neighborhoods in the UK and US controlled by drug dealers. You get people becoming vulnerable and hopeless because of their dependency on those drugs.

It's the same issue with sex. I don't care what sexual orientation someone is, as long as they're not hurting children or animals. But again some so called 'liberals' want too much 'freedom'. Yes sex is a natural and private thing, but it's also something that without the right protection and education on the subject can be risky. The amount of STI's and teenage preganancies is extremely high, and not only that but sleeping around often has a negative emotional and mental affect on people, such as lowering self-esteem and self-worth. It just seems to me sometimes like these so called liberals aren't actually liberal at all, but rather just want the freedom to do whatever they like and be selfish, without taking any personal responsibility for it.

[JacobW]

I agree. Most liberals and libertarians seem unable or unwilling to analyse political problems in any detail and just try to sledgehammer them with a crude, poorly thought through, and often completely incoherent version of the harm principle.

[Mister Dead]

well that's that sorted then.

you two = brilliant

nearly all liberals = idiots


who knew this would be so easy

[viriol]

(Original post by sammynorton90)
You get people who believe they should be able to take as many drugs as they like and call the government 'fascists' for making them illegal. They don't take into consideration the affect it has on society as a whole. It's not just done to annoy them and take away their 'freedoms' it's because you end up with whole cities in Mexico run by drugs lords, and whole neighborhoods in the UK and US controlled by drug dealers. You get people becoming vulnerable and hopeless because of their dependency on those drugs.

I must disagree with this bit. Not that I agree with allowing people take drugs at will - but that is simply because I believe laws shouldn't permit immoral things, even if that takes a negative toll on society. And these problems you're referring are that negative toll. If you think carefully, it is precisely because drugs are prohibited that these drug dealers and drug lords have people buying from them in the first place. None of that would exist if drugs could be bought in every convenience store - well, at least they'd be more civilized, like oil lords and money dealers.

[Mister Dead]

(Original post by sammynorton90)
It seems to me like a lot of liberals just want the 'social liberalism' that comes with being a liberal. They think that being a liberal means you believe people should pretty much be able to do whatever they want, without taking the possible consequences into consideration. That's not liberalism, that's anarchy or libertarianism.

I'm all for social freedoms, I support same-sex marriage and adoption etc, but a lot of modern day 'liberals' take their belief in social freedom too far. They want to be able do whatever they want, even if it's obvious it will have a negative affect, on them and society.

You get people who believe they should be able to take as many drugs as they like and call the government 'fascists' for making them illegal. They don't take into consideration the affect it has on society as a whole. It's not just done to annoy them and take away their 'freedoms' it's because you end up with whole cities in Mexico run by drugs lords, and whole neighborhoods in the UK and US controlled by drug dealers. You get people becoming vulnerable and hopeless because of their dependency on those drugs.

It's the same issue with sex. I don't care what sexual orientation someone is, as long as they're not hurting children or animals. But again some so called 'liberals' want too much 'freedom'. Yes sex is a natural and private thing, but it's also something that without the right protection and education on the subject can be risky. The amount of STI's and teenage preganancies is extremely high, and not only that but sleeping around often has a negative emotional and mental affect on people, such as lowering self-esteem and self-worth. It just seems to me sometimes like these so called liberals aren't actually liberal at all, but rather just want the freedom to do whatever they like and be selfish, without taking any personal responsibility for it.

I love that you are naieve enough to believe that taking drugs and having sex is confined to the 'liberals'. You can fill your OP with as many vague slights on the 'liberal' agenda as you like, but when you actually get into the real world you'll notice conservatives are shagging and taking drugs for the pure fun of it just the same.

[miser]

I mostly agree with this - there certainly seems to be a trend of libertarian-style liberalism. On the issue of drugs, I would say that people ought to be free to exercise liberty in any matter so long as doing so does not harm or infringe upon the rights of others. Free drug use would fit better with a neoliberal, right-wing system where each person paid their own medical fees, but with the NHS and free healthcare, it becomes a matter to be debated whether one's choices ought to be constrained by risk to the tax-payer. If we say that one's choices should be constrained, then that is that, and we should avoid hypocrisy and apply this approach to other dangerous activities, for example certain sports and lifestyles. If we don't want to do this however, then we should not feel the need to limit personal drug use either; it's important that we base our laws on principle and not on tradition or prejudice.

[Observatory]

I don't see your point. You think liberals believe in liberty when they shouldn't, or what? You seem to think liberalism is bad, at least to an extent, but that doesn't mean liberals are being inconsistent or something for holding liberal views.

[Classical Liberal]

(Original post by sammynorton90)
It seems to me like a lot of liberals just want the 'social liberalism' that comes with being a liberal. They think that being a liberal means you believe people should pretty much be able to do whatever they want, without taking the possible consequences into consideration. That's not liberalism, that's anarchy or libertarianism.

No. Liberals do not think that. Liberals think that people should make their own decisions and the possible consequences of such decisions. Liberals think people should enjoy freedom responsibly, rather than just doing anything they please. And that the role of government is to protect people from other people.

I'm all for social freedoms,

Easy thing to say.

You get people who believe they should be able to take as many drugs as they like and call the government 'fascists' for making them illegal. They don't take into consideration the affect it has on society as a whole. It's not just done to annoy them and take away their 'freedoms' it's because you end up with whole cities in Mexico run by drugs lords, and whole neighborhoods in the UK and US controlled by drug dealers. You get people becoming vulnerable and hopeless because of their dependency on those drugs.

The reason these things happen is because drugs are illegal. If drugs were legal nice white farmers would be producing them. And the market would be more competitive which would drive up the quality and safety of drugs.

How do I know this? Just look at alcohol.

It's the same issue with sex. I don't care what sexual orientation someone is, as long as they're not hurting children or animals. But again some so called 'liberals' want too much 'freedom'. Yes sex is a natural and private thing, but it's also something that without the right protection and education on the subject can be risky.

People are educated, atleast somewhat (I would say the mental side of sex education is completely avoided, that is what happens to you when you a become a randy ****er, but that is another issue). And protection is widely available. People just choose to take risks. Do you want to stop people taking risks.

The amount of STI's and teenage preganancies is extremely high

And the amount of sex people get nowadays compared to the past is extremely high. It is a trade off that individuals should make for themselves, not you or the government making the decision for them.

and not only that but sleeping around often has a negative emotional and mental affect on people, such as lowering self-esteem and self-worth.

Getting laid does not do these things. It is always some other part of a persons life that causes such a mindset.

It just seems to me sometimes like these so called liberals aren't actually liberal at all, but rather just want the freedom to do whatever they like and be selfish, without taking any personal responsibility for it.

Well, you clearly do not understand liberalism. Liberalism is all about personal responsibility. Rather your life being somebody elses responsibility.

[Nick100]

(Original post by sammynorton90)
It seems to me like a lot of liberals just want the 'social liberalism' that comes with being a liberal. They think that being a liberal means you believe people should pretty much be able to do whatever they want, without taking the possible consequences into consideration. That's not liberalism, that's anarchy or libertarianism.

I'm all for social freedoms, I support same-sex marriage and adoption etc, but a lot of modern day 'liberals' take their belief in social freedom too far. They want to be able do whatever they want, even if it's obvious it will have a negative affect, on them and society.

Being extremely pro-liberty does not disqualify someone of being called a liberal; if anything it gives them more right to the title than you. The reason that a distinction between liberals and libertarians arose is because modern liberals tend to support state intervention in the economy and state control of certain economic sectors (education, healthcare, etc) while libertarians want the government to do very little aside from defend the country from other governments.

You get people who believe they should be able to take as many drugs as they like and call the government 'fascists' for making them illegal. They don't take into consideration the affect it has on society as a whole. It's not just done to annoy them and take away their 'freedoms' it's because you end up with whole cities in Mexico run by drugs lords, and whole neighborhoods in the UK and US controlled by drug dealers. You get people becoming vulnerable and hopeless because of their dependency on those drugs.

Just like how when prohibition of alcohol was lifted, Al Capone and his cronies took over America! Oh wait, the reason for the drug war in Mexico is because drugs are illegal - not in spite of it. I don't see the employees of Tenants and Guiness having bloody turf wars; do you?

It's the same issue with sex. I don't care what sexual orientation someone is, as long as they're not hurting children or animals. But again some so called 'liberals' want too much 'freedom'. Yes sex is a natural and private thing, but it's also something that without the right protection and education on the subject can be risky. The amount of STI's and teenage preganancies is extremely high, and not only that but sleeping around often has a negative emotional and mental affect on people, such as lowering self-esteem and self-worth. It just seems to me sometimes like these so called liberals aren't actually liberal at all, but rather just want the freedom to do whatever they like and be selfish, without taking any personal responsibility for it.

So what exactly do you propose; that we make promiscuity illegal? And why should I be punished because some fool can't get their sex life in order or learn to use protection? If having sex some how lowers your self esteem (although personally I find that it has the opposite effect) then stop. I don't want my freedom restricted because you feel the need to protect fools from themselves.

[bkeevin]

I agree with the OP. People should just accept what the state commands them to do. Our wise,good and democratically elected policians have rendered certain activities illegal for a reason and it is for our own good. After all do they really think they may possibly know a thing or two about life more than our elected politicians? We should simply take our daiy instructions from our dear leaders from the BBC. Freaking liberals should just do as they are told period

[bkeevin]

[QUOTE=Mister Dead;38556816]

(Original post by bkeevin)
I agree with the OP. People should just accept what the state commands them to do.

Oh really.



No it's not. It's not for our own good, and it's not for the good of individuals abroad. It's for financial and political reasons. Our politicians fire people that try to actually examine these things properly.







troll, surely?

Of course I was being sarcastic because of his ludicrous position hence the smilie I used

[The Socktor]

(Original post by sammynorton90)
It seems to me like a lot of liberals just want the 'social liberalism' that comes with being a liberal. They think that being a liberal means you believe people should pretty much be able to do whatever they want, without taking the possible consequences into consideration. That's not liberalism, that's anarchy or libertarianism.

I'm all for social freedoms, I support same-sex marriage and adoption etc, but a lot of modern day 'liberals' take their belief in social freedom too far. They want to be able do whatever they want, even if it's obvious it will have a negative affect, on them and society.

You get people who believe they should be able to take as many drugs as they like and call the government 'fascists' for making them illegal. They don't take into consideration the affect it has on society as a whole. It's not just done to annoy them and take away their 'freedoms' it's because you end up with whole cities in Mexico run by drugs lords, and whole neighborhoods in the UK and US controlled by drug dealers. You get people becoming vulnerable and hopeless because of their dependency on those drugs.

It's the same issue with sex. I don't care what sexual orientation someone is, as long as they're not hurting children or animals. But again some so called 'liberals' want too much 'freedom'. Yes sex is a natural and private thing, but it's also something that without the right protection and education on the subject can be risky. The amount of STI's and teenage preganancies is extremely high, and not only that but sleeping around often has a negative emotional and mental affect on people, such as lowering self-esteem and self-worth. It just seems to me sometimes like these so called liberals aren't actually liberal at all, but rather just want the freedom to do whatever they like and be selfish, without taking any personal responsibility for it.

As an anarchist, I take offence to being compared to liberals.

[PicardianSocialist]

Okay, there is no difference between liberalism, in the classical sense, and libertarianism, in the modern (American) sense.

(Original post by sammynorton90)

I'm all for social freedoms, I support same-sex marriage and adoption etc, but a lot of modern day 'liberals' take their belief in social freedom too far. They want to be able do whatever they want, even if it's obvious it will have a negative affect, on them and society.

Ah, I see. You're all for freedom up until the point someone wants to something you don't like. That's an interesting conception of freedom you've got yourself there.

(Original post by sammynorton90)

You get people who believe they should be able to take as many drugs as they like and call the government 'fascists' for making them illegal. They don't take into consideration the affect it has on society as a whole. It's not just done to annoy them and take away their 'freedoms' it's because you end up with whole cities in Mexico run by drugs lords, and whole neighborhoods in the UK and US controlled by drug dealers.

Mexican drug lords are the result of the prohibition in first place. If drugs were legal, they would be produced in the open in far more ethical fashion just like alcohol or operating systems. When was the last time you heard of cities being run by IT kingpins, or Bill Gates ruthlessly murdering his competition?

We saw the same thing during the prohibition of alcohol in the US. Alcohol production was taken over by vicious mobsters who controlled entire neighbourhoods, killed people, and made piles of cash. After legalisation all of this disappeared.

(Original post by sammynorton90)
You get people becoming vulnerable and hopeless because of their dependency on those drugs.

That really is a problem, but do you really think the way to stop is to throw these same people in prison? Of course not, the best way to help them is to offer them alternatives and support. Prohibition just makes the drugs far more expensive and dangerous by preventing competition, which just means they are spending far more of their income on a far worse product.

It's not even clear that prohibition significantly reduces drug use. If you would like to cite some evidence, I'm all ears.


Finally, even if prohibition does significantly reduce drug use and therefore the damage to addicts and their, there is no way that this outweighs the damage done through the enforcement of prohibition - the people shot in their homes by drug cops, victimised by organised crime gangs funded by drug money or killed in a crossfire between rival drug cartels.

(Original post by sammynorton90)
It's the same issue with sex. I don't care what sexual orientation someone is, as long as they're not hurting children or animals. But again some so called 'liberals' want too much 'freedom'. Yes sex is a natural and private thing, but it's also something that without the right protection and education on the subject can be risky. The amount of STI's and teenage preganancies is extremely high, and not only that but sleeping around often has a negative emotional and mental affect on people, such as lowering self-esteem and self-worth.

So... do you want to ban sex or what?

(Original post by sammynorton90)
It just seems to me sometimes like these so called liberals aren't actually liberal at all, but rather just want the freedom to do whatever they like and be selfish, without taking any personal responsibility for it.

Being a liberal is not the same thing as being a libertine. There are a whole host of things I think people are stupid or irresponsible to do, including doing drugs or having unprotected sex with strangers, or are immoral to do, like cheating on your partner or to being cruel to people, but that doesn't mean I want the state to prohibit these things. To paraphrase Voltaire: I do not agree with what you want to do, but I'll defend to the death your right to do it.

[viriol]

(Original post by PicardianSocialist)
It's not even clear that prohibition significantly reduces drug use. If you would like to cite some evidence, I'm all ears.

Am I the only one who thinks murder should still be illegal if it were clear this prohibition did not significantly reduce the number of murder(er)s?

[ilem]

Couldn't agree more. So sick of everyone pretentiously preaching all kinds of irresponsible 'freedoms' under the guise of liberalism, while rejecting any responsibilities that come along with them.

[Mister Dead]

(Original post by ilem)
Couldn't agree more. So sick of everyone pretentiously preaching all kinds of irresponsible 'freedoms' under the guise of liberalism, while rejecting any responsibilities that come along with them.

how about some examples?

[PicardianSocialist]

(Original post by viriol)
Am I the only one who thinks murder should still be illegal if it were clear this prohibition did not significantly reduce the number of murder(er)s?

I think murder should be illegal because it's a violation of another individuals rights, while drug use is not. However, people who do make the case that drug use should be illegal rarely do so on the grounds that it violates anyone else's rights, but on the utilitarian grounds - that laws against drugs have good consequences, therefore we should support laws against drugs. Soif one can show that the premise (that laws against drugs have good consequences) is incorrect then I can show that, even on their own terms, prohibitionists are wrong.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by sammynorton90)

1. think that being a liberal means you believe people should pretty much be able to do whatever they want, without taking the possible consequences
2. That's not liberalism, that's anarchy or libertarianism.
3. It's not just done to annoy them and take away their 'freedoms' it's because you end up with whole cities in Mexico run by drugs lords, and whole neighborhoods in the UK and US controlled by drug dealers.
4. "fascist"
5.You get people becoming vulnerable and hopeless because of their dependency on those drugs.
..

I missed out the last chunk beacuse it had no substance and you repeated yourself.

1. Liberal, stemming from liberty, liberty means "freedom from", freedom from coersion, of freedom from those blocking your choice of action, liberty is the freedom to do what you want as long as you phyisically harm no one else (this goes with intellectual property, personal and private property)
2. Orthodox anarchists (socialists and communists), not liberal and individual anarchists, have a completely different a revised version of liberty from the original or "classical liberals". So stop correlation two terms to mean the same thing. Additionally, your idea of liberalism is either a conservative or progressive one, both modern. The conservative branch has 3 strains, CBA going into them, the main one, the idea is to preserve the amount of liberalism present today, and encourage more economic liberalism, and progressive liberals are left wing statist who aren't libearl at all, they want to introduce laws curbing all sorts of free speach, actions, etc etc
3. The whole reason mexico is like it is, is because drugs are legal, thus the black market reigns supreme over their distrobution (indirectly, the CIA and corrupt American/Mexican officials, politians, the armies, police, securty, whatever, have also lent their hand)
4. Lets see, there are all sorts of things more dangerous than taking dope, taking hallucinogenics, ecstacy, even cocaine and well made clean heroin (meth is just bad full stop haha), fast food, sugary drinks, driving your car, not keeping fit, yet these things aren't banned, if they were, imagine, the government bans all fast food and sugary drinks, even driving, seems very authoritarian to me.
5. Same with alcohol, fat people and unhealthy food etc Here's what I think, if you want to bang up some heroin, then go knock yourself out, most people high on H can't do **** all, but if they become addicts, and become dangerous, then they suffer the full consequences of their actions. That's what liberals think, only when you harm someone else do you get your just deserts.

What you describe is a pretty bog standard approach by social libertarians, and indeed, non-european social liberals. What you would think is going to far, is what I think.

As long as people are consenting, are consenting, they should be able to do whatever the hell they want. Such as death sports, don't care if it seems distopian, but like a gladiator type thing, where criminals or people who grudges can go into a ring (with the consent of family as well) and just fight to the death with weapons, obstacle courses, weaponized racing courses. Even things such as cannibalism, necrophillia or necrophagism (eating the dead), if, before they die, they consent to this, and it makes the other person happy in their own sick, sick way, then that's fine by me.

Edit, I've made a thread for death sports http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2057142

[The Socktor]

(Original post by prog2djent)
1. Liberal, stemming from liberty, liberty means "freedom from", freedom from coersion, of freedom from those blocking your choice of action, liberty is the freedom to do what you want as long as you phyisically harm no one else (this goes with intellectual property, personal and private property)

A little off-topic, but why do you support that?

[sammynorton90]

(Original post by Mister Dead)
I love that you are naieve enough to believe that taking drugs and having sex is confined to the 'liberals'. You can fill your OP with as many vague slights on the 'liberal' agenda as you like, but when you actually get into the real world you'll notice conservatives are shagging and taking drugs for the pure fun of it just the same.

That's what I'm saying. These fake liberals think doing this stuff automatically makes them a liberal, without actually knowing anything about liberal policies.