Comments by "Clown Life" (@Clownlife432) on "Downtown San Diego residents wanting to break leases because of the homeless crisis have options" video.
-
@cmack17 I would not say I’m the final arbiter, but would say I understand in broad terms what is broadly accepted and believed amongst conservatives from having read the works of their main intellectuals.
I did directly answer the question. The public is allowed equal use, that use can be defined by the government.
The government is different then us, just like police are different then us. They are not merely citizens. They are citizens that we give special powers to that you and I don’t have to exert extra control over our lives.
Keep government small. A government based on negative rights is inherently smaller then alternatives. Because negative rights are things that can not be taken from you. Where as positive rights are things the government has to give you, which requires a large government to do. You can not have welfare without people to distribute it. This needs funds, so then you must tax, which needs agents. The more things you “give” away, the more you require a larger government. Small, ideally would involve only basic services to protect negative rights. Small in the sense, that if San Diego has a homeless problem, they don’t reach out to the federal level, they tax their own citizens to handle their own issue. They are closest to the problem, and know what needs done better then anyone in Washington. Also, as you reach to the federal level, rounding “errors” become bigger by politicians, and they tend not to solve the problem. I’m fact, and I’m sure you’ve had experience with this, they often exacerbate a problem. They leave you scratching your head, and wondering why would anyone do it that way, that would never work. It’s because they are too far from the issue to provide a reasonable solution. All they can do is waste your money in a dog and pony show of support to try to get re-elected.
If San Diego wants to clean it up, it’s easy. No camping on sidewalks. You have the option to move it along or seek counseling and help. If yo want to do drugs in public, and cause crime, you can go to jail. It works very well, I have lived in 14 different states, multiple areas in those, rural and city. The places that thrive the best in regards to this issue make that clear, and it works. Turns out people don’t want to be in jail for being addicts, and they often choose treatment at that point.
If the federal government does have any role here, it’s to lock down the border from drugs traffic. I propose executing drug traffickers. You’re not a citizen, and choose to assist in poisoning are citizens, and causing decay in our cities. Well, you forfeit your life. This will dramatically lower the smuggling because it changes the incentive structure dramatically. Which what you do to when you tell addicts, treatment or jail. These policies of open air drug markets don’t work.
I had a business in LA, formerly lived in SD for 7 years as well. The addicts and crime they brought around, I just up moved. You’ll see that more and more if things don’t change. Good citizens leave, and you’ll be left with addicts, petty criminals, gang activity, antifa, and poorly functioning governments, and local economies.
2
-
2
-
1
-
@cmack17
1. I do not know what question you speak of. Please be clear.
2. We can have a discussion about drug legality in relation to externalities not being imposed on others. When you fill the sidewalk with excrement, and cause crime, you are cussing externalities. If someone wants to use drugs in the privacy of their home, we can discuss the limitations of that. Libertarians would argue for no laws. That’s just anarchy. They would argue for the use of drugs that do not hurt others, and setting up your tent, and committing crimes is hurting the community. But yes, libertarians would not fully be against drug use, but context dependent.
3. The second sentence is not written in a way that makes sense to me, please provide clarity. The first sentence, drug dealers should be punished here as well. But you better believe that all this originates with cartels bringing it over the border, and those people should be killed. Again, it creates the appropriate incentive structure. Drug dealers need to serve long terms here, they shouldn’t be allowed to plea down to possession. I would not argue for the legalization of all drugs. Drugs like meth only have one ending. Recreational substances can be discussed about trade offs, and incentive structures they create. But I think you’re confusing libertarian with anarchism.
4. I would agree the people are lazy. I never said they weren’t. I heard before a phrase I liked. It said that we hate politicians so much because we see ourselves. We get who we get, because that’s how much the the average person pays attention to what’s happening around them, that’s how much the average person understands about our republic. So I don’t know what point you’re making, other then most people are fools, and I would never argue against that. In fact, since most people are fools, the people we give special powers over us, the government, they should be hemmed in to an extreme.
1