aramike

Actually, Nova, there is no member with #1. I guarantee it.

Apparently member #0 is for anyone who is no longer in the system. For example, aramike01 would be member number 0 (I'm just "aramike" now). "Ron Wallin" was changed to "Akira", "Antti Junkarri" was banned. As for a member #1, no such member appears to exist. [ 05-09-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

There should still be some upgrading tips in the Tips forum. Eseentially, its a guide to what spare parts to sell and what upgrades to purchase from the ca$h. Follow those tips, and you'll be on your way.

quote: This drug war is a direct infringement on our constitutional rights, and should therefore be abandoned.That's the thing, it is not an infringement Constitutionally. The state CAN legalize drug use (a few states have). While drug TRAFFICING is a federal offense, drug USE is merely a misdemeaner.

quote: I am conceding to the points that criticize that little system I made up. That system was just my interpretation of a possible Socialist alternative, it was not an exclusive representation of what Socialism is. Now I'm discussing what's wrong with Capitalism so that I may clearly understand the problems with it in order to conceive a better Socialist alternative. Did you just say CONCEED??? *Faints* Anyway, we all know the problems of capitalism - we deal with them. So, come up with a good socialist argument.

Well, I believe that the UBB assigns an automatic member #1 - the initial administrator.

I dunno, your take on the Constitution is quite broad. The fundamental guarantees of the Constitution is the right to speak freely and the right live freely. For one thing, taxation is not Constitutional, so if drugs WERE legalized and taxed, that would be more of a violation of the Constitution than keeping drugs illegal. Also, the Constitution expresses the FUNDAMENTAL right for all people to live without danger of harm from others. If careless (albiet legal) drug use ever harms someone, it becomes in violation of the Constitution. My point is, this is not really a Constitutional issue because it could go either way. The Constitution does NOT guarantee life without laws, nor total freedom. It guarantees SPECIFIC freedoms: expression, speech, firearms, press, equality of freedom, freedom from self-incrimination, freedom from government oppression - drug use is not and never was one of those freedoms.

quote: Originally posted by SteveM: Hi there,My apologies for upsetting people. I was only passing through having been bowled over by the demo and joined to try and help Paddy get hold the demo (through the private message system)and generally post encouraging things for any other UK surfers. My best wishes to all concerned with this project. I'm certain it will be a massive hit and I've been assiduously promoting it in another forum, to a general chorus of sceptical disbelief. Doctor Smart, I hope BCM makes you as rich as Croesus, but without the unfortunate side-effects. Relax, sit down, take a load off. This community is as forgiving as any out there!

quote: I think that if we were to legalize drugs, we could tax it, in order to pay for the health care and further law enforcement that might be required. But I believe any drug addict should be responsible for those actions and therefore should have to pay their own healthcare.That's another problem. Tax it too high, it goes right back underground. Then, ALL taxpayers suffer the burden.

Murder plots: I'm not saying that calls should be monitored or any such rubbish. I'm saying that, if a plot is uncovered, it IS illegal. This happens rather frequently, actually. Legal Drug Use: I'm sure it would rise. Many people mistake "Legality" for "social acceptance". I'm sure there would be the "casual crackhead" much like the casual drinker.

Menchise: What do you mean by "getting somewhere"? I've been saying the same things all along! You still haven't challenged those points. quote: Originally posted by Apollyon: I feel the need to ask about a point about which I have been wondering during most of this discussion. What exactly would happen to artists and writers and "creative" peole like that in a Socialist economy. In capitalism people desire the products of their creativity, or they don't. If they do then they are willing to give up a portion of their wealth in order to aquire those objects. If they don't then the artist must make better things or do something else. In a Socialist economy the government would assign someone to create art. What if people don't like that art. What if someone who doesn't want to be a number cruncher wants to create art, but can't because their job is to do something else. So they do it in their free time. So what? People still won't buy that art because there is no money, no trading of wealth. And where would he get the supplies to create that art with? Would it be a part of his normal government issue? What about people who don't want art supplies for government issue? Give it to them anyway, to appease the few, or give it to no one? What if you give it only to the people who want it? That requires predicting supply and demand, which is impossible to do without either surplus or shortage. What happens when you don't get what you wanted but your neighbor does? That's not fair. In capitalism, if you don't get what you want, you can work for it. And as Menchise has pointed out so many times, there is always a surplus in Capitalism, and if it's not available, you have the option of making it available for yourself. I can see at least a few advantages to each system, but overall I think Capitalism is better for everyone. Good post.

...very one-sided facts. I imagine they don't come from a very objective source. Regardless, my points in the last post still stand. Btw, that report essentially found drug education to be useless. Therefore, another method of control should be employed. [ 05-08-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

Jaguar: quote: The Drug war is nothing more then the government taking away our freedoms and our choices. The government has no place to try and make a personal choice illegal, Morality is not the governments job, it is the parents job.I agree that the government has no business defining morality. However, under that argument, one can say that the parent is responsible for defining murder as moral or immoral. Further, the government is not taking away our choices - we can still CHOOSE to do these things. The difference is in the fact that society can punish those who choose poorly. quote: As long as I don't hurt anyone else or get into a situation where I can hurt people, by being in Public, driving a car etc. It should be NONE of the governments business.Agreed. Therein, however, lies the problem and the reason I agree with outlawing drugs. While I would trust someone like YOU to not get into those situations, I'm not about to TRUST a drug addict. I mean, how ridiculous is that? Let's TRUST people who just as soon sell their children for their next dose of heroine. I mean, we can't hardly enforce drunk DRIVING laws! People STILL get behind the wheel. So, we legalize drugs that are even MORE dangerous and impairing. What do we do when THOSE people start driving? What kind of technology can combat this (some cars won't let a person drive when they are intoxicated)? Also, what do we do about the side-effects? What do we do about the person who is driving while totally sober, but has a bad trip suddenly creep up on them? What about the person who gets so impaired that they make a NON-CRIMINAL mistake that costs lives? You say we can only punish for a crime. What about the people who LEGALLY do drugs but end up harming people accidently as a side-effect? That isn't criminal and there is no way into forcing them to stop the reason they are risking harm of others. This is why drugs should remain illegal. If (that's a BIG "IF") we can someday ASSURE that people won't suffer "bad trips", won't leave their homes and get behind the wheel (because they are too impaired to know that it is wrong), people won't become so dependant that they hurt others for their next drugs, etc., I'll be fine with legalizing it. But the idea that we should let the problem GROW when our police can't even keep up with the major drunk driving problem is insane. Do you like taxes, Jaguar? We'd be paying more of those as we'd need more police. In other words, we'd sacrifice some of OUR freedoms so that drug addicts can have THEIR chemical freedoms. I am *supposed* to be free to be safe on my streets. I don't even have that. So, let's make the problem WORSE? Jaguar, is sacrificing one freedom for another freedom WORTH it? The best way to stop crime is not to punish it after it happens, it's to punish it before anyone gets hurt.

First off, the idea that I've taken ANYTHING out of context is insulting. Please show me where I've done such a thing. quote: On a number of occasions where I have tried to explain something to Aramike, he reads it out of context and explains the flaws of a system that is different from what I was meaning to describe.Oh, that's right - it couldn't POSSIBLY be the fact that there are any flaws in that system. quote: . Whenever I say the word 'government', he instantly thinks about the word 'oppression', because he still holds to the assumption that because a Socialist is talking about government, that government must eventually be oppressive.Alright, now this is ridiculous. Here's the FACTS, for any paying attention: When you say government, I do NOT immediately think "oppression". It is when you say CONTROL. There is NO other way for a government to enforce the system you describe without OPPRESSING the freedoms on the INDIVIDUAL. Everyone would HAVE to be in AGREEMENT as to what they are supposed to do, when the government (local or otherwise) TELLS them what to do ... PERIOD. If agreement CANNOT be established (since when has the human race agreed upon ANYTHING?), then the government (local or otherwise) must use more DIRECT methods of enforcing established production requirements. The ONLY DIRECT WAY for a government to do this is OPPRESSION ... PERIOD. So far, you've avoided explaining a few simple points of yours which are completely flawed: 1: How would the government enforce production? Is it, "don't work, don't eat"? Considering that tasks are ASSIGNED, this is OPPRESSIVE. 2: You said that people would not have "lesser" feelings because there would not be differing compensation. I then asked you the question as to HOW the people assigned to MENIAL tasks would feel as opposed to those assigned to more trumpeted tasks. In other words, I have proposed to you the fact that labor divisions would STILL exist, and you have yet to point out why the otherwise is true. 3: You've said that efficiency would be increased due to less of a production surplus. In other words, you are suggesting that there would be just the right amount of goods produced to meet demand. I then pointed out that there is NO WAY to predict demand. So, WITHOUT surplus existing, shortages would be a frequent inevitability. On the OTHER hand, the government could CONTROL demand, but what is that? Oppression. 4: You pointed to a free educational system open to all individuals. This must not be age discriminant or otherwise, lest it favor a social class. You then pointed out that if someone wanted to increase their status in the workforce, they need only go to school to develop the prerequisite skills. However, under YOUR system, each citizen is required to essentially produce their own goods. Tell me how a person would be able to continue their education when that would detract from the good he receives. Sure, you could say that the AMOUNT of goods is dependant upon the amount of work done, but that wouldn't jive with your system either - that would essentially create a capitalist society without money. Social division would result from one man aquiring more goods than the next man. Also, you cannot say that people would be granted "free" goods when continuing their FREE education, either. Why? Two things could result: Production shortages due to decreased workforce due to educational leaves. Menial workforce would be depleted, and as such, one workforce would be short of people. Who's going to be the janitor if they can simply go to school?5: This one goes with point #4. You say that people are allocated to jobs when the desired job is not available. In other words, if there are no "good" jobs available and tons of janitor work available, OVER qualified people would be FORCED into mopping floors. Being FORCED to do something is OPPRESSIVE. Menchise, I am following the system as you described it to a fault. The bottom line is, it could NEVER work without SOME measure of government intervention to FORCE people to do things they are unwilling to do. THAT, is called "OPPRESSION". There is *NO* way around that. You can ignore the FACTS all you want, but they still remain FACTS. And considering the FACT that you have yet to challenge the key points that I've listed, you seem to take a "religious" stance. I'm not making this into my "religious" stance, because I have FACTS to back up EVERYTHING I challenge you on. Plus, I HAVE challenged EACH one of your points. The only point I've made that YOU'VE actually challenged with a measure of sense is the SEMANTIC definition of "individualism". Considering the semantics mean nothing in the real world, I don't consider this a great stride for your argument. Moving on, your argument makes SEVERAL unfounded and baseless assumptions: People will cooperate and embrace this system. People will not revert to trade of goods thusly aquiring wealth. Enough people will undergo adequate training to supply the HIGHLY SKILLED professions when they could reap the same benefits with professions of lower prestige. Worst assumption - EVERYTHING will magically BALANCE itself out so your system will work. Without this automatic balancing system, the government would be FORCED to OPPRESS people into falling into the system. People will respect the authority of their peers. Hard to assume because of equality stance. People will accept oppression into things they DESPISE simply for equality. This is termed "unjust equality".Time to wake up. Your argument has SEVERE flaws in it. When you make unfounded assumptions (that HISTORY has proven baseless), your ENTIRE argument is essentially a mere practice in blind ideology. When you don't even RECOGNIZE the inherent flaws of your argument, it is essentially religious because of its baselessness. YOUR interpretation of socialism is destructive. It simply replaces the economy with NO real benefit to society, as all the reasons you've outlined are EQUALLY detrimental to society as the capitalist system. The socialist system you've outlined ADDS problems as stated in my list. All in the name of some bizarre measure of equality: everyone is EQUALLY screwed. I indeed know your argument well. It appears as though you've ignored mine in pursuit of a fantasy Shangi-La. I will READILY admit that capitalism has its flaws, but the EMBEDDED human desire for freedom is NOT one of them.

quote: Originally posted by Nivest: So what would I have to do to get a bunch of traders together as a faction and colonize a planet? Wait for GCO.

Btw, Shingen, next time you pull that "hypocritical" crap, consider this: in a socialist society, people simply do not have the freedom to choose HOW to make their way - only WHETHER OR NOT to do so. In OUR society, we DO have that choice. Laws are NOT the removal of freedoms - SOCIETY IS. The amount of freedom removed is dependant upon the society. Further, one STILL has freedom to go against the laws. Society THEN has freedom to punish this individual. Socialism does NOT allow one to do as he pleases. Capitalism (a republic) does except that people suffer consequences.

quote: I'm sorry, but if you use asperin/headache medicines, cough medicine, artifical sweetners, coffee additives, ect,ect,ect you ARE using chemicals, and since ALMOST everyone uses CHEMICALS thus we do live in a CHEMICAL dependant society. Labeling one chemical 'drug' and the other chemical something else is irrelevent because they are both still CHEMICALS.OK, uhm, please tell me that you actually DIDN'T know what I meant by "chemical dependency". I really see no reason to debate silly semantics. quote: Also the only way to GUARANTEE enforcement of the drug-laws is to create a police state of which a socialist would be proud. No offence aramike, but in one thread, you say that the government should have NO REASON to violate your freedom, and in this thread, you want to take way someone else's FREEDOM to ingest 'drugs', because you say it's for a 'greater social good'. This is rather hypocritical to me.OK, now I'm getting ticked. You're being ridiculous. Perhaps we should get rid of drunk driving laws too? Perhaps everyone should have the ability to risk OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES on a "bad trip"? I don't think so. In the "socialism" thread, freedom is that of IDEOLOGY. If you can only debate semantics, that simply goes to show your lack of a true argument for the cause. Perhaps murder should be legalized? People using drugs are a DANGER to EVERYONE ELSE in society. quote: I say as long as they aren't hurting me, then fine.Well, if a substance-abusive citizen decides to mug you for spare cash because he can't afford his crack habit, don't complain to the police. What you're suggesting is that we TRUST people when they get high. That notion is so incredibly ridiculous. quote: If or when they commit a crime, then they should be PUNISHED FOR THE CRIME! Drug-dependancy is a HEALTH problem, not a CRIMINAL ONE, and you risk your freedoms when you make it a criminal problem, because every law that's written is a freedom lost.Well, then perhaps we should have the freedom to harm one another. Drug dependency is NOT simply a health problem - it is a societ problem. Plain and simple. If someone wants to do crack in their home, and is LOCKED in as the same time, that's fine by me. But let's legalize these HIGHLY ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCES, so when people run out of cash to aquire them, they become threats to society. Further, let's legalize the production of it, so a HUNDRED TIMES MORE of the crap hits our shores. Oh yeah, that's a BRILLIANT idea, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING that drug dependency is the catalyst for damned near 60% of ALL CRIME in the US. Take a look at these statistics: http://www.dea.gov/stats/drugstats.htm#adultmale2 . Sure, let's trust DRUG ADDICTS to make the right decisions. That is why drug use should be illegal - in doing so people make a decision that ENDANGERS the lives of ANYONE around them. Endangerment IS a crime. Btw, Jaguar - marijuana isn't a major threat to truly screw people up. If people want to use that alone, in their homes, that's fine by me. [ 05-07-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

quote: This is ludichrist(?).Hehe, "ludicrous". quote: We are already a chemically-dependant society, and obtaining 'drugs' is relativily simple and easy for most 'drug-users'.Not NEARLY as chemically dependant as we would be if it were legal. For one thing, it would be much easier to obtain drugs. Secondly, it would become socially acceptable. Third, I fear it would send out a very poor message to our children: "Well, you really SHOULDN'T do this, but if you REALLY want to...". Society as a whole is hardly chemically dependant as most drugs are NOT socially acceptable. quote: since most drug-users are using prescription medications, then that would lead me to believe that prescriptions drugs are being more abused (given human nature), and what makes you think that narcotics and illegal 'drug-users' are abusing those drugs any more or less the legal drug users?Uhm, U.S. DEA statistics. quote: I think that illegalization has more to do with the 'pyschotic' effects of certain drugs, then it's harmfulness to the human-body.Actually, one of the major reasons that drugs are outlawed is due to heavy overseas manufacturing. It was feared that other countries could destabilize the US economy through drug trafficing.

quote: It depends on which drugs you wanted to legalize and why you wanted them legal. I would assume that most abused drugs are legal prescription drugs and not illegal controled substances. But the reason certain drug are illegal have very little to do with how 'harmful' they are...Absolutely not. The most often abused drugs are illegal narcotics and depressants. However, there is a high rate of prescription misuse, but it is nowhere near illegal narcotics. Simply put, prescription drugs have less effect and are a bit more difficult to come by.

Narcotics should ENEVER be legalized. Sure, the government would exhibit some control over concentrations and potency, but at what point do people begin to want more? When THAT happens, the illegal dealers are right back in action. Also, legalizing it makes it easier to obtain and subsequently, you risk having a chemically-dependant society. Further, how would the government control the DOSAGE of illegal drugs? Let's say some guy buys crack at one store, then goes on to purchase more at another store. An OD would be just as probable of a circumstance. Another thing to note is that regardless of legality, those drugs would remain very expensive - even more so with the inevitable taxation. So, underground dealers would STILL have an outlet. Further, FIREARMS are legal, but there remains a black market in that trade. I just don't think it would ever be appropriate. On another note, I really wouldn't have a problem with pot being legalized because its effects are less than alcohol. However, it should be illegal to use it anywhere OUTSIDE of a person's home - and penalties should be VERY stiff and swift. Personally, I DESPISE drug users (even those who don't know when they've had enough alcohol). To me, they are a drag on society. How ridiculous is it that some people believe that foreign chemicals are the answer to their problems?

Good post!