Ok... Weed farming is actually not as harmful or equal to most other agricultural crops. I read this article that made it seem as if weed farming is substantially more harmful when in reality its illegality makes it so. Not the farming itself. So if someone owns land... The govt should step in and regulate? Let one farm what they wish! Second, I am completely for a registry and background check for guns. But I am not comfortable with our unjust judicial/police/military system owning all guns...
…while the citizens have none. I mean… law enforcement seems to be pretty violent towards peaceful victims/victimless crimes currently as you know bc I read your blog and you post endless articles about it. Would you not feel uncomfortable if cops were the only ones allowed to wield weapons? Bitcoin has problems yeah, I never took interest in it. It was an interesting experiment I suppose but who the fuck cares what currency people decide to use? It doesn’t affect the ppll not using it.
Weed farming is just as harmful as growing any other crop. It is a crop and it requires the same methods used to grow food because it is used for consumption (I mean agriculturally; the safety regulations [not using known poisons as pesticides, etc] for growing food are obviously not followed because there is no one to enforce them.). Illegal weed farming is harmful because it’s unregulated. Deregulated farming is harmful because farmers can use whatever methods/products they want, which usually end up being the cheapest, most efficient methods/products which are almost always very detrimental to the environment and very detrimental to consumers. Cheap/Efficient is a short sighted model of business. Humans are short sighted. It’s a fact that as a species we are terrible at weighing the costs and benefits for the future. So it’s more than idealistic to think the majority of people will chose the slower, often times more costly yet healthy and sustainable business model, especially when there will be people who don’t (this undercuts the higher price sustainable practices incur and again, humans are bad at cost/benefit analysis so they’ll almost always pick the lowest priced item, and you can’t really blame them when you take the wealth disparity of certain countries into consideration). Businesses will currently risk thousands of dollars in fines to dump pollution straight into the ground. How would taking a “it’s your land so do what you want” approach make that behavior less likely?
This is another example of something that’s not really a personal choice. First off, the Earth doesn’t work in terms of property rights. You may own 3.26 acres but your activity on that land does not cease at your legal property line. An obvious issue is run off: chemicals used on your land will run off your property and unto the property of others after rain. Also, aquifers. What you do on your land, be that using dumping oil or watering your lawn 3 times a day, will affect the aquifer everyone uses. Another issue: poisons used on your land will be consumed by animals that you don’t own, but pass through your land, because animals also don’t adhere to the concept of property rights. Do you have the right to poison any animal that passes through your land? A current example; organic crops are becoming contaminated with genetically modified crops because it’s impossible to force wind, seeds and birds to respect property rights. GMO companies are using this ancient act of nature to sue for copyright infringement if a GM plant is found growing off their property. This is an example of something you did on your property that now detrimentally affects someone else’s property. Now assuming anything done to a piece of property only affects that piece of land, consider this; should a person be able to degrade their property to the point that it is completely unusable? What happens when that person dies? What if that person moves away and buys a new property and damages it severely too? What if most people lived by laws that allowed them to use/abuse land as they wanted to, as long as it was their property?
Standards will drop as low as you let them. People already have a hard enough time not throwing McDonalds trash on the ground. Lets not make the standard one of complete non-intervention.
You know what would solve police brutality really quick? Disarm them. I think a certain kind of person is drawn to the position of authority and occasional force that a police job requires. So I’m even less comfortable with police being armed and I would never advocate an unarmed populace and an armed police force. For what? The police only require guns if the public has them. Though I don’t advocate anything except modest gun regulation because the United States is a total lost cause. There are countries, like Iceland, who also have access to guns and an armed police force, yet the United States rate of gun deaths is 10 times that of Iceland (a figure adjusted for population, obviously). The United States lacks a respect and seriousness in gun ownership; gun culture in the US is more of a race to stockpile weapons as a fuck you to a government who has never and will never actually put forth a significant piece of gun control legislation.
So your last line of this question "who the fuck cares what currency people decide to use? It doesn’t affect the ppll not using it." is exactly how I feel too. You could read my response to you as not in praise of government intervention, but very much in defense of personal freedoms. I totally don’t have a problem with Bitcoin either because (as far as I know) it doesn’t significantly affect the people not using it.
We live on a planet with 7 billion other people. I’m sure the libertarian concept of "live and let live" worked very well at one time, but we’re at a point where seemingly mundane, seemingly personal choices have a very real and very important impact on not just other people, but everything on this planet and we need to start acting like it.