I don't know why there are so few of us. I am often frustrated finding a side in American politics because I have those who want to control my money on one side and those who desire to control my morality on the other side. It doesn't make sense to me that the intelligent liberal can argue coherently about the importance of individual freedom for free speech, drug use, gay marriage etc. but dismiss those same arguments out of hand when made about economics. It doesn't make sense that the intelligent conservative can argue for the importance of economic freedom but belligerently ignore the same arguments when they are made for social freedoms. 

 

I believe the central problem is that people like myself who have a desire to be left alone but no desire to control others are rarely politically active. People who run for office want to "fix" things. We don't want to "fix" things, rather we just want government to keep out of the way and allow individuals to figure things out for themselves.  

 

Historically I have sided with those who will leave my money alone on the theory that with enough money I can break whatever laws I find overly oppressive. However, after GW I promised myself to never again compromise in my voting. Now I only vote third party. 

Beyond Saving summed up my feelings on the matter exactly.

 

Probably qualify as a pragmatic libertarian. Voted green last election in Australia but the Labour Party policies mirrored my feelings around 60 per cent. I've always identified with the libertarian message but as I've got older wondered whether or not in modern democracy libertarianism should simply be a strong undercurrent in the dominant parties rather than the dominant force. I think there are significant libertarian elements to most modern democratic forms of government.

Further, I tend to think libertarianism represents a position that applies historically - something you could dream of during a process of exploration. Once enough people have crammed into a place, I'm not sure libertarianism has the brute force to manage them. You can't control hundreds of millions of people if all you want is to be left alone. You need a frame work of some kind which provides a muscular guarantee of civil rights. These days libertarianism is an idealistic position, perhaps even a green position. I think it was more prevalent here in the 1980s. Not so much now. 

On the topic of the free market, I think as you get older and you have more invested in the free market there's an increasingly unwillingness to upset the apple cart. Having said this, I'm not sure how the free market and religion are tied together as suggested by the OP. Maybe that's just the country I'm in. Business is the great satan down under. 

There's a sense inside me that you can be libertarian in the west if you want to. But as some one said upthread, that is going to involve living in a rural, village, town setting and choosing the things you do to reflect what you believe. Of course, you are still going to surrounded by numbats and religious control freaks and as Brian37 often says, you have to put up with it because their freedom is intrinsically yours. 

 

Ed: Rag's point about the U.S. never becoming a secular democracy like Canada has vibrations. America was the original secular democracy. What the hell went wrong?

I pretty much 100% with mellestad.

I remember listening to a podcast where Michael Shermer was speaking at some convention or other, and he asked the question of the audience (of sceptics/atheists), how many were libertarians, and was clearly surprised/disappointed at what was apparently a very small number of hands raised.

I seems to me, at least as commonly expressed in the USA, to over-emphasise the individuals 'rights' and not adequately acknowlege how interdependent we all are in modern society, and how many convenient things we take for granted in advance countries are dependent on a structure of regulation and common utilities.

'Rights' are meaningless without a framework of 'law and order' and someone to 'enforce' them - police, lawyers, courts, committees to frame the laws and update them, etc, and a 'social contract' of some kind to tie it all together. Individual desires are going to run into conflict at some point, and in anything beyond very small groups, left to themselves, are likely to 'blow up' into outright conflict.

Of course we need to have mechanisms to stop these regulatory mechanisms getting too intrusive. Its called 'checks ad balances'.

From the liberal viewpoint, taxes are not so much for the funding of future projects. Instead, they are for paying off the debts that came from the projects of the previous generation to lay the groundwork that enabled you to make wealth in the first place: the roads, the schools, the fighting of crime, and so on. The indiscriminate lowering of taxes is seen as being akin to eating at a restaurant and then refusing to pay for the meal. Economic freedom is great, but it does not include the ability to skip the bill.

Also, from the liberal viewpoint again, the law of supply and demand only dictates prices and production reliable in the context of rational operators enjoying the bilateral and transparent exchange of information. This poses a problem because unregulated markets lead to the opposite of transparency and human biology leads to the opposite of rational operators. When irrational operators and unregulated markets come together, information disparities arise, then the law of supply and demand no longer dictates prices or production reliably, then bubbles form, then bubbles pop and bring about chaos. The free market needs government regulation to create and maintain the conditions needed for the free market to exist and function properly, because it would only destroy itself otherwise.

I don't think so, that's the platform of most social/socialist democracy parties, so it isn't exactly rare or novel.

 

Now it might not work in the U.S. but...

We had to go shit on the thread, didn't we.  This is why we can't have nice things.

 

 

As a side note, calling the Internet a free market is a bad idea, because it isn't.  Every player in the market, from the consumers to the producers to the infrastructure and everything in between is highly regulated.  I'm not saying those are good or bad, just that it isn't free and more than the highway system is a free market.

It *is* a free market in that if someone does some particular action, "The Internet" isn't going to enforce regulations, but whatever government holds sway over that entity certainly will.

Actually, the largest suppliers of content and goods as far as quantity are probably mostly illegal if you added up the number. Ans what legitimate institution isn't highly regulated? My point is that the Internet has resisted government attempts to regulate it. The ease with which transactions can be completed in any part of the world with any other allows you to avoid many regulations and taxes. While such transactions are often illegal, government attempts to regulate it has been futile. For example, look at file sharing, movie sites, porn and internet gambling. All of which are illegal in the US. The government has attempted to crack down but another operation pops up as quickly as they shut one down. So while it isn't a perfectly free market because the government can restrict access to an extent, it is far more free than say your local strip mall.

 

From an economics point of view, the Internet allows people to have access to large markets that are relatively unregulated or self-regulated such as E-bay, Craigslist or self made websites. Which has had a dramatic effect on how goods are sold and the prices they are sold for. Some items have greatly increased in price, such as many concert tickets, others have dramatically decreased in price such as many antiques.

 

Often, with an Internet transaction, you have no legal recourse if you get screwed. For example, if Sapient was using the money I am sending him every month to go to the movies, I couldn't sue him. If someone through E-bay or Amazon sent me faulty merchandise and refused to offer a refund I would have a really hard time pressing a lawsuit. So in that respect you also have a free market that is mostly regulated by peer review rather than some government inspection agency.

 

So while I agree with your point that the Internet is not a perfectly free market, I believe it is the closest to a truly free market in reality. And as such, I would argue it has been a huge success.     

OK, if you want to define a free market as a market where all players are strictly regulated, the infrastructure controlled by governments, all technology is controlled by patents and communications are all monitored by governments, then it is a free market.

-------------------------

On the general point, can Libertarian nations support the kinds of education systems and societal structure that seems to correlate with atheism?  Honestly?  I don't think it is shocking that social democracies have high levels of atheism.  I'd go so far as to say you could graph an inverse correlation, but there probably aren't enough working examples of Libertarianism to make a useful data set.  The types of nations that seem the most atheistic are those farthest from Libertarianism (without invoking the complications of China/Russia or other forced secular states).

 

I'm sure it is complex though, the factors are no doubt highly varied by society.  This is why I stopped studying politics, it is too muddy and you can't do useful testing for most things.  Even at high levels it is he said, she said.

 

Until we can point to actual examples of Libertarianism bringing about better and healthier societies and individuals I'm not sure how I could be convinced, not when I can see so many examples of flourishing non-Libertarian societies.  Every time I get into these debates it comes down to the *ideal* of personal liberty, but I've yet to have anyone show me any evidence that using that as the bedrock of society actually makes things *better* compared to other systems that put less weight on it.  It seems to be an idea that gains traction based on the cultural  idealization of a history that never existed and ideas that have never born real fruit.

 

Edit: As I've said before, I'd love to be proven wrong, because the basic ideal has great cultural resonance with me too.  It would be very gratifying to have evidence that it actually worked and confirmed my familial inspired bias.  As it stands I find myself supporting things because they are shown to work, not because they feel right.  Unifying those would simplify my political thought process a great deal.

The only libertarian country in recent history is the United States. I would argue that we started out fairly libertarian and have been slowly moving towards a more centrally controlled and larger government. No other country has been founded on the concepts of individual freedom in modern times. I believe that is why the US has been so slow to adopt measures like a universal healthcare system when pretty much every other western democracy has adopted some type of government healthcare system. I don't think it is an accident that the US has been a catalyst for most of the technological and economic growth over the last two hundred years. And now we appear to be slowing down to the point that other countries are going to start to pass us up in economic areas we have traditionally dominated in. It is because we have historically had an economic system that greatly rewards innovation. A system that we are slowly converting to look more like Europe and now seems to reward political connections more than innovation.

 

As for supporting things because they have been shown to "work" you are making the mistake in assuming that there is a limited number of things that work. Slavery worked great, imperialism worked great, the Roman Empire worked great, feudalism worked, fascism worked. Right now, China arguably has one of the most efficient economic systems on the planet. I don't want to live in that system. Even if it does work better which I think is debatable. If your sole goal is for a country to create the most wealth with no concern for the distribution of it to the citizens a benevolent dictatorship being ran by someone astute in business that treated citizens like employees would probably be the best system. I don't think that is a good thing or a healthy goal.

 

I am libertarian first and foremost because I value individual freedom above all other ideals. The happy coincidence that increased economic freedom also correlates with increased innovation is simply icing on the cake to me. I would rather be free in a poorer country than controlled in a wealthier country. The US is proof that you can have your cake and eat it too in this case.  

 

As for the correlation of atheism with social democracy I think you are right. There does seem to be a correlation that indicates more personal freedom leads to more religion. Even inside the US, states with minimal government regulations also seem to have lower rates of atheism. I think this has more to do with the human psyche than anything. The bottom line is that many people do not want freedom. Freedom can be scary because all the responsibility is thrown onto your shoulders. They want someone to tell them what to do. If the government isn't telling them what to do, religion is a natural thing to turn to. Which I don't have a problem with as long as they don't decide to start trying to tell me what to do.

 

As for social democracies "working", well not in their current form. It might be theoretically possible, but what we are doing right now is clearly not working. We are running a trillion dollar deficit a year with massive amounts of government promises coming due in the future. We simply do not have the money. Either we will need to raise taxes to such a confiscatory level that it will kill the economy, print the money and devalue our currency to the point it is worthless or we will default on our promises. I think it is far more cruel to promise someone "free" benefits when you know you can't afford it than it is to tell them up front they won't get it and should plan for themselves.

 

Right now we are doing the equivalent of running up the credit cards. Sooner or later you have to pay the bill and when you do you can't continue running them up. It has taken 100 years, but the system is not sustainable. Anyone who takes an honest look at the numbers has to come to the same conclusion. European democracies have started drastically cutting benefits. We will have to do the same thing in the US too. The sad part is that many of the poor people that social democracies are so obsessed with helping are the ones who are going to find themselves down the creek without a paddle because they have gotten used to getting benefits and don't know how to live without them.    

@Beyond: I'm honestly a little shocked that you're willing to put an ideal against empirical results.  To me, that's a bad thing.

As for most of your other points, you've picked a single issue and is shapes your entire political view.  Like all you have is a hammer so all you see are nails, you know?

Social democracies *do* work.  Like you said, we're probably one of the most Libertarian nations around and we've got one of the worst income to debt ratios on the planet.  I could say, "More freedom equal more debt" but that is simplifying a complex system to an absurd degree.  Other nations have more socialism than we do, with better credit scores.  It obviously isn't impossible.  Only idiots think government services are free and no-one here is an idiot.  Just because the U.S. is fucked up doesn't mean the idea is unsound, it means the U.S. is full of idiots who spend more than they make, full stop.

 

As for the correlation, that is totally not what I said and you know it.  I would say that increased public education and services makes people less miserable and being less miserable and more highly educated leads to less religion.  Although you are right, less government seems to lead to less security, lower wellbeing and more misery which leads to more religion at some point.

 

EU democracies are drastically cutting benefits because of the financial crash which lowered tax revenue, which was most certainly not caused by socialism.  The fact that all those socialist nations are cutting back and the U.S. keeps trucking ahead without making any large cuts just goes to illustrate my point, it isn't about mixed socialism vs free market capitalism, it is about stupid near sighted people versus those who are not.  Greece didn't cut back in time and it could be we won't either.

Profit isn't about how much you spend, it is about how much you make versus how much you spend.

 

If your base metric is freedom, that's great, but I'll gladly pick the nations highest on the human development index over a lawless wasteland, free or not.  My goal in life isn't to die free, it is to die *happy*.

-----------------------

Christ, I'm rambling aren't I?

 

Summary:  Social Democracies work as long as you pay your debts.  I can give you plenty of case studies to prove this.  Libertarianism as a political system is un-tested adn the closest thing to it is early America, and I don't want to live in early America, it was shitty, my life is better.  I'm moved by the emotional appeal to freedom as an ideal, but if I let that rule my life I'd still be an evangelical Christian.  That just isn't how I've chosen to make decisions.  I need evidence and I need metrics.  Until someone can show that Libertarianism leads to better, healthier societies and individuals I'm not going to swallow it.  To me, freedom is not a metric, it is a potential input into the system that may or may not result in happiness and wellbeing.  I *like* paying taxes so I can live in a modern society.

------------------------

 

The problem is most people would want services when they needed them.  If you could create a system where opting out meant people were willing to suffer and die, then sure, I guess, although I'd be against letting people make that choice before they reached the age of majority.

 

I see your overall complaint against irresponsible spending, not against socialism.  That has more to do with education than anything else, to make sure people are taught that long term thinking is a good thing.

 

I think calling our historical government largely Libertarian is like calling the Internet a free market.  You dilute the term.  The U.S. was never Libertarian while it was a world power, we've not been even close to Libertarian since...what, before the civil war?  Shit, half our grand technology came from WW2 and the cold war and most of that was driven by government spending.  The infastructure to accomplish this stuff all came from government spending.  But once you get into that the Libertarians can't agree on how Libertarian to be.  Sure, they don't like taxes but most of them like Interstate and Dams and the Internet and having a phone in their house and.... Whatever.

 

And again, you're simplifying.  The rise of the U.S. during and after the world wars can't be simplified to, "because we had more Libertarian principles."  Even if it was true that we were Libertarian during that time, and I think that's a hard argument to make, the geopolitical, cultural and local political influences to that were vast and complex.

 

So you're content to live in Iceland? Switzerland? How about Australia?

Somehow, I think your current situation betrays your actual intent...

I think that is perhaps *THE* most practical statement anyone has yet to make in this thread. Unfortunately, 'better', 'healthier' living locale doesn't appear to be your goal, judging by your actions.

 

Not valid, Kap.  I'd cheerfully move to Canada, Iceland, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, France, .....

But they won't take me.  I'm too old and I'm too poor.  Let alone the problem with affording transportation to any of those places.  I might be able to afford the trip to Canada - I'm not that far away - but they would be happy for me to spend my money there, but not to have me move in.

Mellestad is right - show me one - just one - country that is libertarian.  The US wasn't a world leader in anything until after WWII.

 

@Beyond: I would be OK with opt-out, with the conditions that it be taken at adulthood.  You'd probably need to be physically separated though, otherwise you'd be inadvertently benefiting from a social contract you were not a part of.  But I've said that before, I'd love it if all the Libertarians could take over an island and show everyone else how great the system works, then I'd finally have an example to use in justifying my innate cultural bias.

 

I've never said there was a pure system for socialism or Libertarianism, so you're barking up the wrong tree for that argument.  If your argument is just that more freedom equals better then you need to define metrics for 'better' rather than say, 'more freedom equals better, because freedom is better than non-freedom'.  That is where you're at now.  What is better?  The idea of freedom makes you happy, but someone dying of a preventable disease because they failed to plan makes me sad.  So how do we resolve that?  We find a real metric, not a circular argument for a random trait being superior to all others.  Anything above anarchy is a reduction of freedom, so unless you want total anarchy you need to get some other metric to argue your case.

Right now you're saying you support freedom at any cost, up to pain of death.  I'm OK with that, but I'm not willing to let you impose that on me.  I'd be willing to let you impose it on yourself though, per the above.

 

I get that you idealize the concept of freedom, but again I'm not sure how you expect to convince anyone else of your argument if you can't define something objective, unless the idea is just to rely on the potential emotive impact.

Let's put it this way.  Since you've acknowledged that no system is truly Libertarian, then if two Libertarians are arguing over how Libertarian their Libertarian system should be, what metric would they use to decide between the two systems?  Or is the system with more freedom automatically correct?  If that is the case, why not pure anarchy?  Again, metrics.  Define a metric, then we'll see what system works best to accomplish that.

 

Re: Your question- There are two different complaints listed, really.  

One is, "Justify incorrect government actions." but why would I?  They are incorrect, I doubt I like them any more than you.  So what?  This is like your complaint about irresponsible spending...your solution is to say throw the whole thing out, damn the consequences, it will all work out somehow even though it never has before.  My response is to say, OK, let's fix those things, other nations have fixed those things, we can too.

Two is, "Justify making me do anything I don't explicitely agree to do." which is a non starter, because even the most bare bones Libertarian government already does that.  The very concepts of citizenship and social contract makes that a fact of life.  The only way to avoid it would be anarchy.  The only way to minimize it would be creating a dictatorship where the dictator only agreed to do certain things, and never budged.  Being part of a society in general will always make some people must conform to ideas they don't like.  What is the alternative?

 

Except maybe Rich Woods, none of the libertarians thus far on this thread have really addressed the threat that theologically bound capitalism poses for any hopeful future in the United States. Sure, we can argue about the instability of social democracies and axing benefits or we can talk of the sequelae of conflicting self-interests of individualism with class warfare. These are age old arguments that probably date back to Adam Smith. Beyond Saving has no problems living among "libertarians" whose insecurity leads to blind religious faith as long as they don't infringe on his liberties. Well the fact of the matter is that whether we like it or not, each of us is not an island but in fact a social animal who has no choice but to be among the relgious retards. They will end up calling the shots and this will inevitably culminate in squashing any rational atheist libertarian. These folks are not Goldwater republicans nor are they really fans of Ayn Rand. In a heartbeat they'll burn and then ban all her works when confronted with her atheism. I certainly have no expertise on which economic model will charter the US towards being a successful democracy in the long run (and I wholeheartedly agree with the great track record). But a country run by people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old and a sizeable chunk of the populace (at least 20%) who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, such a society will spiral out of control until the Palinite dullards elect.................THESE GUYS:

It's happened before. Ihre papiere, bitte!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

Right now they are not in power and have no realistic ability to get in power in the near future. I maintain that by having a government that is small and limited you make it more difficult for any crazy group of people to exercise control. If the government is not powerful then it doesn't matter as much if they ever get control. Right now, with our government as powerful and influential as it is, it would be devastating if they gained control. If we had the small limited federal government our Constitution set up, GW would have caused a lot less damage. So if your concern is that some group that disagrees with you will someday be in power, you should be concerned about how much power the government has.

Which is why I find it morbidly amusing all the "conservatives" that have suddenly become upset over the powers in the Patriot Act because Obama is in power. What did you expect dumbasses? eventually the other guy is going to have that power, so if you don't want them to have it you shouldn't create it for yourselves. 
 

@Beyond:  I don't have a problem with states rights, there I agree with the basic Libertarian ideal.  Honestly though, any state could already do this...they just have to reject all Fed funding.  Funny how it doesn't happen even in the more Libertarian states like Montana.

 

About that specific issue:  I don't necessarily support explicit bans on things, but I do support regulations and education programs that help people make informed decisions.  As I don't believe in a soul or free will, I know that external influences can cause people to make bad decisions.  You can't rely on people making informed decisions unless you give them the education and knowledge to make informed decisions.  So, something has to balance the real power that food has on the brain, power to cause addiction and over-consumption which leads to damage that can impact the individual and the community.

So, with food examples, I wouldn't want bans on certain food items, but I would want mandated labeling at points of sale that acknowledge risk, and I would want education programs in place to teach children and adults about the situations.

Some things probably should be banned though.  I'm not sure how I feel about the legality of selling an addicting substance like Alcohol and Tobacco when you know, statistically, it will kill X% of the people who try it.  That is tough though, because usually those things do cause some measure of happiness to the individual, so you have to figure out the cost versus benefit, and the likelyhood of something like a ban even working or the damage a ban might cause: see, war on drugs.  Those are complicated issues.

If they are sold, they need to be heavily taxed to pay for the damage they do to society, since you can't rely on the user to pay the debt they will likely accrue.  Or you just let them die I guess, but that isn't a direction I'd like to go.  Balancing the good created by freedom of choice with the bad of the likely outcome of that choice is something that can be objectively measured.

------------

So, freedom is better because freedom is better.  OK, I guess we can agree to disagree there.  Figuring out, 'where to draw the line' is something we all do, so in reality that means we don't agree in principle, just in degree.

I know you say you don't, but when you answer questions like that your metric is actually, "what is best for society".  You just think freedom is best for society, but I'm asking you to justify that with evidence.

 

Where do I draw the line?  Theoretically, I'd like to draw the line at the point where damage to society occurs to a greater degree than benefit, if an alternative is available.  Complicated, but more realistic and objective than just assuming freedom is always better when evidence seems to show that is not true.

 

-------------

For example, by your metrics, we are still probably the most 'free' nation on Earth.  We should be the best, right?  Our people should be the healthiest and happiest?  Happiest?  Something-est?  And our society 150 years ago should have been even better, right?  But we aren't and it wasn't.  "Free-est" doesn't mean anything to me unless it is part of a larger metric.  To me, that is sort of case closed unless someone can shift the preponderance of evidence back the other way.

 

@Beyond:  Well, that makes sense then, my morality dictates I have some concern for the wellbeing of society, and that will be good for me as well.  I'd like my children to be statistically more likely to be happy and healthy and it tickles my fancy to leave the world a better place than it was when I got here.  Statistically, Libertarianism is good for some, but it is not optimal for the majority.  Well run socialist democracies seem to be the best bet we have right now for the majority, based on the evidence available.  I don't see a way to resolve that quandary where our core beliefs part, unfortunately, since the goal is apparently dissimilar.

 

The only thing I would point out is the idea that it is possible for you to be some sort of island in the midst of a society seems naive.  I honestly think you have it backwards in regards to what enables your own happiness.

 

Depends on what the repercussions are of both the choices and the system that lets people make whatever judgement we are talking about, either way.

 

For example, it might be, "Best" to simply kill anyone who does a particular thing 49% of a society happens to disagree with, but it might be 'Worse' to have a society where such a thing is permissible in the first place.

 

So yes, my view is utilitarian, but it isn't simplistic...every action has potential for complex chain reactions.  My default position on an issue would be freedom over government intrusion for just this reason, however when we have clear evidence about efficacy then I would chose what works best over what is free...with the caveat that we're talking about a holistic approach, not just knee-jerk simplistic stuff.  Sometimes the best holistic approach is to leave people alone and simply accept the damage that causes, because it is cheaper overall than the alternatives...like the modern drug war.  If I could wave a magic wand and make substance abuse disappear forever, I'd probably do it.  But I'm out of magic wands, so right now I'd just like to legalize it, tax it and use the revenue for rehab clinics and education programs.

------------------------

So, shorter answer to your question:  All other things being equal, then yes, I would choose the option with greater positive benefit.  However, all other things are very often not equal between two choices which is why politics is hard.  I'd just like to see a more science-based approach to political issues where possible.

That includes opiate derivatives, crack/cocaine, and tranquilizers of various kinds, right? Maybe not?

The one thing I staunchly disagree with libertarians on, is the unwavering belief in COMPLETE legalization of *all* substances, all the way up to speedballs.

Montana is libertarian?

You left out something else important: many states that take federal funding take more in than they pay out in taxes. However, even still, I'd demand that the feds drop quite a few of their taxes, including the Income Tax, before anyone gives up the federal funding tit.

There is little to no logic in having someone from... Oregon, pay for Earmarks/Congressional pet projects in Maine.

In what manner? Just before the Civil War (or during it's pre-declaration stages, rather) states were rebelling not because of attempts at Abolition, but because the Nation was sliding towards despotism.  Only later on did Abe decide to make things about slavery and proclamation. This is the time period where the phrase "40 acres and a mule" comes from.

I'm just trying to get my compass set for this "true libertarianism" rubbish... apparently I also forgot my sarcasm tags.

 

What I am interested in is your approach to politics seems to be based in your conception of morality, but you apparently have no problem with immoral actions by society as a whole if the result is what you conceive as "good". I assume you would agree that it would be immoral for me to go mug someone, even if I turned around and donated to a charitable cause. Yet you seem to have no problem with a majority of the population taking from a minority if the ends are good. Why is it moral for a group of people to do something that would be immoral for an individual? 

Of course it is open ended. It is a very simple and basic question. 

Yeah, government gets its power from bullets and force. And you are making the affirmative assertion that it SHOULD use that power to punish people who use drugs. I would submit that many people who use hard drugs know the dangers. They simply don't care. Either they are so miserable with their lives they don't care if they die, or they are convinced that the high is worth it. Really, is there anyone in the country who doesn't know that drugs can fuck you up? Those who use heroine probably know a lot better than anyone how much it can fuck you up because they tend to hang around other people who use heroine. So again I ask, what makes you think that you (using government as your tool) should attempt to make/keep it illegal? Why is that different than me deciding that whatever kind of self-destructive behavior you participate in should be illegal?