You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Classical Liberalism 101: Is Prohibition a Benefit or a Bane to Society?
Well, if it is a regulation, it cannot be just societal pressure. For most drugs, I agree it should be just frowned upon. I don't know where exactly the line should be drawn, but there should be a line.
I'm sorry for perhaps sounding too extreme, but it sounds like the question in your mind is where to draw the line between using arguments, and using aggression.
It's not extreme at all. There is a line. I'm fully aware that my position might seem extreme as well, I'm all for debating and all, but there is a point the it's either submission, or violence.
I'm 100% for debate, but when that fails, violence might sometimes be called for. For example border protection, or property protection. You can be nice to the intruder and all, bu t there is a point where that is not enough and you have to protect what is yours.
Societal pressure is nice and all, but there will always be those that will not conform to common sense, and, as evil as it might sound, violence, or at leas the threat of violence, is needed...
The question,then, as I see it in this frame, is when is it ok to initiate violence upon the peaceful?
Well, it depends. With drugs, which kinda started the conversation, that would be coaxing kids to buy stuff, forcing drugs to some people (eg: in drinks and shit), cartel wars ... that kind of thing. Regarding borders, here in eastern Europe, we have it pretty well, shout warnings, shoot in the air, then shoot at target. That seems about right to me. Initiating violence upon the peaceful is not ok, but there will be people who do it, hence we have police to initiate violence upon them.
That's the irony right there: There will be those who initiate violence upon the peaceful, so we have the police force to do it to them first???
No, we have armed police to attempt to deescalate the conflict, then respond with violence if necessary. Sure, I can agree it doesn't always work out perfectly, but better than no police, wouldn't you say?
I say private security guards would do the job better, and are.
No, because every private entity will dole it out differently, that wouldn't be rule of law, but de facto feudalism.