On Jun 29, 7:18=A0pm, democraticsup****...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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=
we
> > > 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
i=
s,
> > > 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
c=
ity
> > > does as well. =A0You can found another city out in the County like
Veg=
as
> > > 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
gener=
ic
> > > 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.
a=
nd
> > > 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
h=
ow
> > > 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
ha=
s
> > > 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.
=
=A0You
> > > 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
agains=
t
> > > things like television and s****ts and ****. =A0Just against these
> > > addictive drugs. =A0But once you start down that road where will it
ta=
ke
> > > 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
b=
y
> > > 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. =A0American laws should be based on sound reasoning and
> sound principle. =A0Not just the passing whims of the majority. =A0It
> shouldn't be "oh today we are going to outlaw this stuff and tomorrow
> we are going to outlaw that stuff." =A0Such tyranny and corruption
> undermine the criminal justice system in its entirety. =A0What is right
> and Just must go beyond a passing imposition. =A0 The greatest principle
> of justice and righteousness is freedom. =A0For all "rights" come from
> your unalienable right to freedom.
>
> Reason, Philosophy, and Principles must be the foundation of our
> Justice. =A0Such 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. =A0I find no such sound reasoning
> for outlawing advertising of other products.
>
> Perhaps some advertising should still be allowed however. =A0For
> 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. =A0For 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. =A0For
> instance if there was a television show about cigars running, it would
> seem okay to allow cigar commercials. =A0But 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. =A0More 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. =A0I find a sound reason for outlawing such
> advertising. =A0I find no such sound reasoning for outlawing advertising
> of other products. =A0We 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. =A0But 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
So if you're advertising drugs for money outside of regulations your
business would be fined. If you're just saying - oh this drug is so
great to me everyone, then they would have to argue that you're saying
that for money, for commercial purposes.
|
