On Jun 14, 6:06=A0am, Aardvark <zen...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jun 13, 9:53=A0pm, democraticsup****...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > We should hereby found the Libertarian Social Economic Party. =A0We
> > embrace all of the tenants of the Libertarian party except for
> > Libertarian Capitalist Economics. =A0We are not socialists, but we
> > subscribe some regulation of commerce, and believe in the concept of
> > public property, and believe that completely unregulated commerce is
> > like stealing. =A0Regulation however, must not mean prohibition. =A0So
w=
e
> > must set out and endeavor to clarify how commerce might be regulated,
> > without being unduly prohibited.
>
> > So, we should hereby set out and found this party. =A0The next thing
is,=
> > I have a few ideas not necessarily related to this party:
>
> > One idea is that we could allow cities to ban store front commerce.
> > Then you would have to drive to another city or out to the County.
> > But this could keep drug bars, brothels, and gun stores (and casinos)
> > out of the city - as well as bars if that is what the city wanted.
> > But then, don't you want a bar? =A0I do. =A0Hopefully everyone in my
cit=
y
> > does as well. =A0You can found another city out in the County like
Vegas=
> > and have your brothels and casinos - and gun stores and drug bars too
> > if you want.
>
> > Also we should ban commercial advertising of addictive substances
> > entirely. =A0You shouldn't even be able to call your store a liquor
> > store, or maybe even a tavern or a bar. =A0You must make up some
generic=
> > name. =A0Like "Henry's." =A0Thus when an addict is trying to recover,
s/=
he
> > won't think of alcohol or cigarettes. =A0Aside from the free speech
> > concern it actually is an abomination that we allow cigarette and
> > alcohol advertising to continue in magazines, and on billboards. =A0I
> > say this as somebody who fully sup****ts an individual's right to drink
> > and smoke in public anywhere. =A0Perhaps the free speech issue is
> > significant enough of a concern, I haven't thought about it enough,
> > but we could at least try to persuade companies to willfully ban such
> > advertising. =A0I know they got rid of cigarette advertising on t.v.
and=
> > supposedly don't show people actually "drinking" a beer on the beer
> > commercials. =A0But that doesn't change the fact that just as with any
> > other product, when =A0you see a Budweiser commercial you think,
hmm...
> > maybe I'd like a cold one. =A0If you're an addict I can only imagine
how=
> > destructive this could be to your attempts to maintain sobriety or
> > stay off cigarettes. =A0One minute you've forgotten all about your
> > drug. =A0The next minute someone is in your face trying to make money
> > off it by telling you it's a great thing to do.
>
> > We maybe have to be careful about this though, because then they
> > possibly could ban any commercial advertising for anything, by
> > dishonestly claiming that some people might have an addiction. =A0For
> > instance, they could claim there to be an addiction to ****. =A0Then a
> > cor****ation wouldn't be able to advertise ****ography. =A0They could
> > claim there to be an addiction to television. =A0Then a cor****ation
> > wouldn't be able to advertise television. =A0They could claim an
> > addiction to a s****t. =A0Then a cor****ation wouldn't be able to
> > advertise its s****ting products. =A0So maybe a better idea would be to
> > get companies to willfully stop advertising alcohol and cigarettes.
> > And maybe we can pass laws that just aren't overruled - maybe I might
> > fancy that the companies go along with these laws and don't challenge
> > them. =A0But then even this is a bad idea, because once every state
has
> > passed a similar law apparently the Supreme Court will say your
> > unalienable right must not exist anymore because no one recognizes
> > it. =A0So as far as the law goes I guess there is no middle ground.
=A0Y=
ou
> > can't both have rights and not have them concurrently at the same
> > time. =A0Although the idea was that we aren't passing such laws
against
> > things like television and s****ts and ****. =A0Just against these
> > addictive drugs. =A0But once you start down that road where will it
take=
> > you? =A0To book burning, the Soviet Union, Farenheit 451, 1984.
>
> > So maybe no commercial advertising of addictive drugs approved only
> > for recreation? =A0Or would more of our rights just be taken, little
by
> > little.
>
> > It seems like we have to figure out some solution however if we are
> > going to legalize recreational drugs though right? =A0Surely we aren't
> > going to embrace advertisements for crack on t.v. are we?
>
> how about we just ban everything that *you* don't like?
>
> aardvark
Good point. American laws should be based on sound reasoning and
sound principle. Not just the passing whims of the majority. It
shouldn't be "oh today we are going to outlaw this stuff and tomorrow
we are going to outlaw that stuff." Such tyranny and corruption
undermine the criminal justice system in its entirety. What is right
and Just must go beyond a passing imposition. The greatest principle
of justice and righteousness is freedom. For all "rights" come from
your unalienable right to freedom.
Reason, Philosophy, and Principles must be the foundation of our
Justice. Such reason and principles should be questioned entirely and
if there is truth and justice to them, the original conclusion will be
reached.
There is a sound reason for outlawing advertising of addictive
substances for commercial purposes. I find no such sound reasoning
for outlawing advertising of other products.
Perhaps some advertising should still be allowed however. For
instance it should be legal to advertise cigars in a cigar magazine.
People who are looking for information on a product are not addicts
and do not need to be protected from temptation and enticement.
So this is similar to if a cigar company sold advertisements to people
who wanted to buy them, but in the case of advertisements running in a
cigar magazine the advertising is more indirect.
This could be a controversial point, because when would the cigar
company actually be engaging in plain advertising. For if it came out
with its own cigar magazine for sale, how would that differ from
buying a billboard, t.v. commercial, or page in another magazine. For
instance if there was a television show about cigars running, it would
seem okay to allow cigar commercials. But on second thought that
could become just like the cigar company buying a 30 minute t.v. show
about cigars as a paid advertisement.
In the case of magazines, however, it might be okay to just let
producers sell their advertising to those who wanted to buy it, if it
even got that far. More likely they would merely be taking out
advertisements in magazines that already contained articles about the
addictive products they intended to sell.
Again, this is only for advertising of addictive substances for
commercial purposes. I find a sound reason for outlawing such
advertising. I find no such sound reasoning for outlawing advertising
of other products. We should all be considerate of the dangers of
infringing upon free speech rights, as my previous post noted.
Another thought however, is if you can not advertise addictive
substances for commercial purposes, can you make money condemning the
use of them? Most public service announcements are probably not for
profit. But what if they were??
Either way, a non-profit cor****ation should be able to advocate or
condemn the use of addictive substances, just as a private citizen
should be able to.
|
