How do you intend on doing that? We (USA) don't do that. The only places that hold people accountable for anything are places like China - we can't even keep people in jail for violent crimes. The people being held accountable are the people that share the road with druggies, the people getting robbed and murdered, and the children of druggies who in many cases become more unstable than their parents. They're being held accountable for not stopping or at least slowing down the insanity of other people. We we trained that the War on Drugs was a failure, but look what happened when it stopped. Allowing drugs has created tent cities in our more "understanding" cities.
@@CompassIIDX Actually, Libertarians are more free-market oriented than conservatives are. We are the opposite of radical leftists in many ways. We are individualists, and believe in the individual rights to life, liberty and property. We are anti-socialists. Looks like you don't know what libertarianism is.
Drug Prohibition still being in effect in this day and age, given that we have the actual case study of Alcohol prohibition as a source of data, is crazy. It's not only the drug dealers and criminal elements behind this with drugs, it's the Police, who control huge budgets for the 'war on drugs' and politicians who range from the authoritarian, to the nanny, to the power hungry. So many people with an interest in maintaining Prohibition for their own benefit, and to hell with what would benefit society most. The UK is even stepping up Prohibition on cigarettes, despite there already being a thriving black market due to decades of excessive taxation on tobacco. Does nothing for society, but puts more young people in contact with criminals and makes more profits for smugglers.
When a drug dealer gets arrested in some police districts, the dealer's residence is often burglarized soon thereafter by thieves who are contacted by a police officer who receives his cut from the burglary 🙈🙉🙊
Yes, you can allow drugs, but you also have to stop the government from spending taxpayer money on rehab, maintenance, and other measures. It is time for government to get out of the job of bailing people out of the problems they created, and let the consequences take precedence; whether it be drug use, a burdensome school loan, mortgage, or whatever.
And that is the difference between Republicans,who claim to be conservative and claim to want a small un intrusive government, and Libertarians who are actual conservatives and truly do want a small un intrusive government.
conservative means practices ,system. and values that were traditional at the time of the French revolution that would not include use of Marijuana cocaine , or opioids
@@robinsss Yes,and all drugs were legal before 1913. The constitution says nothing about drugs,therefore they fall under the 10th amendment which is why a constitutional amendment had to be passed to outlaw alcohol and another one passed to make it legal again. No amendments were passed for the other drugs,therefore the federal drug laws against them are unconstitutional.
@@robinsss Those “Conservative” leaders were not actually conservatives,they were people who wanted to force their religious and moral beliefs upon others,and they took over the Republican Party.
@@robinsss Those “Conservatives” were actually not conservative, they were people who wanted to force their religious and moral beliefs upon others,and they took over the Republican Party.
Why should a non drug user pay for recreation gone wrong? Legalized drugs have been tried by many different cultures and failed, the Chinese opium wars and opium dens. But if we are going to legalize drug consumption then make the supply of any drug totally legal and open ( cigarettes) . Including even possible lethal doses of drugs like fentanyl , what is lethal for an addict? It is should be the consumers responsibility to control their drug use and treat an overdose. How do we have tests on the use all vehicles and machinery?
Note: All narcotics; heroin, morphine, cocaine and laudanum were once available from the Sears, Roebuck mail-order catalogue - and we had no drug crime and accidental overdoses were extremely rare. Just sayin…
No, a non-user shouldn't be forced to pay for a user's problems. That's an issue of socialism being evil, not of prohibition being good. Rand wrote about this phenomenon in Atlas Shrugged (20th Century Motor Co) and in some articles. It amounts to chaining everyone together, thus making entire societies easier to control. "One neck for one leash." Legalization (and decriminalization) haven't failed unless they are done halfway. Then, yes, it can fail to achieve stated goals, but succeed very well in the unstated goal of giving the ruling class more power or wealth. The "war on drugs" is a recent invention. In the US (and likely UK/Ireland, Europe, and much of the world) drugs were simply legal and the problems were few and small. Then alcohol prohibition created the Al Capones, and drug prohibition created MS13, and Colombian gangs, and most of the rest.
It’s interesting that liberals, who tend to have beliefs at odds with Rand, took her advice about decriminalizing drugs. However, they didn’t listen to her part about holding drug addicts accountable for their other crimes.
This is the opposite of what's happening in vancouver. In Vancouver all the drugs are available but there's no forced treatment when people are obviously in trouble. Rand's perspective is that the government does need to step in when there's a danger
No, only for minors. She was very clear on that and it's justified because they aren't old enough to sign a binding contract since they can't be bound to anything. I'd argue though that the age could be lower with sufficient education about the drug.
As it stands today decriminalization does not seem to fare that well. Maybe it is because of human nature or because of the legal framework around decriminalized or legalization of drugs. I think current legalization or decriminalization efforts always seem stifled by not freeing the market enough and adding high taxes to those drugs at the same time thereby making it hard to compete with the black market.
@@robinsss Here in Vegas pot has been legal a few years now. Word is that it's still cheaper on the street (I can't smoke it due to weird effects, so I don't keep up with prices). I would guess the reason is that it's not really decriminalized or legalized. It's _partially_ decrim/legal, but the damned regulations are working against the newfound partial freedom.
@@VaraLaFey no marijuana is fully legal in Las Vegas the voters have organize and tell their state reps that they want them to reduce the taxes. to the same level as alcohol that would severely damage the black market
Like anything in life, if rules and limitations are instituted on certain things, people will always try to break the rule. But if there were no rules, there's none to break. It's just how the human psyche works. I understand there's no limitation on drugs in Portugal and, funny enough, drug use is not a problem at all for the Portugese government.
I tend to disagree with absolutism. The trouble with legalizing drugs is that it opens the door to marketing. All good entrepuners look to expand markets whether its soda pop, jeans, or drugs. While I would agree that we should all hold ourselves to high standards, the reality that it's pretty much a curve. We don't need to expose those on the lower end to self destructive and societal damaging temptations.
by that logic we should ban alcohol and porn and social media and probably a lot of other things depending on what is being deemed to be "societally damaging"
Yeah... brilliant.... because without advertising kids today know nothing about drugs... they have no clue what's out there... but once drugs become legal and they are advertised kids will find out about those nasty drugs. Do you people live under a rock somewhere? Do you even THINK before spouting your ignorance?
@@xfhghe the problem is its arbitrary and not based on logic but your biased opinion. it is morally wrong to force everyone to comply. that is why if you cannot persuade people then using authoritarian force against it even for their own sake is a moral evil. treating society like children who cant make their own decisions and be held accountable for their actions is no way to run a society.
@@johnnynick3621 thats a weak argument. first off kids do know about it because the internet exists and secondly we already have advertising for all kinds of "bad" things so by that logic you make it sound like we should ban advertising period. you cant just nitpick at the possibility that more kids will discover drugs because of what they saw on tv. and banning those drugs all together isnt the answer.
I've been saying for decades that if drugs were legalised they would go away. It might take a generation, but it would happen. Legal drugs wouldn't be cool, so the pushers would lose the children at a stroke. Addicts would be able to get their fixes at pharmacies so crime would drop overnight.
The other moral issue is the theft and murder the addicts are prepared to commit in order to pay for their addiction. Does she advocate that acting after the crime is better than prevention? Having read Atlas Shrugged I can see how correct Ayn Rand was about governments but as with all things surely it is a matter of balance.
its not something you can prevent. making it illegal doesnt prevent it all it does is shift it from official sources to non official sources. when you take away individual responsibility people are more prone to lose control as they have a safety net. if something is paid for by tax for example there is no accountability and so state funded projects are vandalized and so forth etc. its all bad and whatever the solution is it must be done privately and individually not by the government.
@@lilyscarlet2584 Then give us the right to carry weapons and use lethal force to protect ourselves, our families and our property after all, by your reasoning the government can't be responsible for our safety so we must do it ourselves.
@@JohnWilliams-iw6oq yes that or hire a private police firm. or if a society wants it they can have a donation based one. there are other ways to collect money than tax.
Overblown panic marginal-issue. You have every right to smoke in your own home, business or car, but not in someone else's w/o permission. In public, you have the right to smoke wherever it's not intruding on anyone who doesn't want the intrusion. Most anti-smoking laws are pure tyranny, albeit relating to a more trivial issue than speech, RKBA, and such. That's one reason to be vigilant against tyranny on trivial issues: it's used as trial-run and as precedent for tyranny on more important issues.
@@VaraLaFey It gives trouble breathing. I was in Berlin outside a shop and I could barely breath my eyes were literally watering from the smoke. Another time I was walking around in London and could hardly breathe at all. It was a bloody pain.
I just want to ban it in public open spaces not inside homes or cars or private buisness because I understand that’s not the domain of government but in public spaces it should be made illegal.
She didn't take in consideration that legalization would facilitate ruthless adults selling to minors. Highly overrated intellectual. Just finished reading fountain head: flat characters living predictable lives.
she mentioned that children are the exception and we have an epidemic of that right now. if it were going through official sources then it would be easier to track and far more kids would be saved. closing the doors to private markets opens the doors to black markets.
@@reneburger4317 where do you thing these drugs are coming from since it is illegal. its not coming from our own institutions. its coming over the border and distributed by dark channels. maybe some small percentage is coming from within but that isnt as important as the fact that its being distributed under the radar. at least if it were above the radar then it would be transparent.
on a list of national priorities reducing crimes related to drugs in high crime areas is more important than protecting a few dollars in your paycheck from the government
@@robinsssBetween Federal, State, local, sales, gasoline and property taxes plus the expenses businesses add to their prices to cover their tax costs we are paying out over 50% of our income to government. You might not mind but I do. Using government to force me to support YOUR whims is evil.
Here is what I say about the war on drugs: "Damned if the government tries to fight drug sale and use, and damned if it does not." Either way, it is hopeless.
Hard to disagree with her logic . Also hard to disagree with the results of her views in Portland and Kensington PA. I used to hold almost identical views, but facts on the ground made me change my mind
If just one small area decriminalizes, it's going to attract users from all the nearby areas. And decrim still won't affect the price until people in that small area start manufacturing the area's own drugs. I'm guessing that's still illegal.
The problem in Oregon is that the criminal distributors were not put out of business since distribution was still illegal. If that had happened with weed anywhere, it would have been a similar disaster since the criminals would strike it rich even as their criminal activity skyrockets all over the state.
@@Bit-while_going I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not following your statements. Which "criminals" do you mean? The political "criminals" whose "crime" is to disobey the unilateral edicts of our ruling class? Or the actual _criminals_ who steal and murder in the course of their trade? Do remember: no victim, no crime.
Not true that they can't get elected on this. If they say it as well as Rand does here, and if they connect it to individual rights, they might have a chance. Wherever there's injustice, we speak up now regardless of an arguments "electibility." If the argument is correct, it still needs to be said, regardless of its popularity.
Aaghhh! She blew a great opportunity to say that there are lots of problems in life, including moral traps and pitfalls like drugs, where people need help and guidance, and though government is not a legitimate provider, there should be a free market in providers, one of which is the ARI.
@AynRandInstitute Hard to disagree when it stays on personal problems, but when it become a societal issues (ex : used💉💉 in the streets and being a treat to public safety, kids): what would be the Ayn Rand stances on protecting the public like in my case cited?
@@jacktribble5253 I have clearly listen… It clearly don’t state the problem. I know her views would say that government has a role to protect citizens. But we live in a world that some clowns are mayors and do nothing because it hurts their bleeding hearts leftist ideology. What is the proper role of government in the specific issues of 💉💉 in the streets?
She already answered your question about kids. But as to needles in the streets, this is simply a property rights issue. Under capitalism, every square inch of land in America would be privately owned. It is up to the property owners to decide how to deal with needles on their streets.
The problem with Ayn's view is that "adults" using drugs don't just ruin their own lives. That self-destruction unavoidably extends to family, community and more.
Government has the right to intervene in some acts of such ruination, but not in the drug sales or use. For just one reason, not all drug use and sales lead to such ruination in the first place.
Allow drugs, but still hold people accountable for their actions.
How do you intend on doing that? We (USA) don't do that. The only places that hold people accountable for anything are places like China - we can't even keep people in jail for violent crimes. The people being held accountable are the people that share the road with druggies, the people getting robbed and murdered, and the children of druggies who in many cases become more unstable than their parents. They're being held accountable for not stopping or at least slowing down the insanity of other people. We we trained that the War on Drugs was a failure, but look what happened when it stopped. Allowing drugs has created tent cities in our more "understanding" cities.
🔥🔥🔥
Well said. I'm a Libertarian, and a huge Rand fan, and I agree.
Modern Libertarian party is the essence of cringe.
@@CompassIIDX Care to elaborate? What is cringe-worthy?
@@freesk8 The Mises Caucus is pretty cringe
They're indistinguishable from radical leftists. You can't get any cringier than that.
@@CompassIIDX Actually, Libertarians are more free-market oriented than conservatives are. We are the opposite of radical leftists in many ways. We are individualists, and believe in the individual rights to life, liberty and property. We are anti-socialists. Looks like you don't know what libertarianism is.
Drug Prohibition still being in effect in this day and age, given that we have the actual case study of Alcohol prohibition as a source of data, is crazy.
It's not only the drug dealers and criminal elements behind this with drugs, it's the Police, who control huge budgets for the 'war on drugs' and politicians who range from the authoritarian, to the nanny, to the power hungry. So many people with an interest in maintaining Prohibition for their own benefit, and to hell with what would benefit society most.
The UK is even stepping up Prohibition on cigarettes, despite there already being a thriving black market due to decades of excessive taxation on tobacco. Does nothing for society, but puts more young people in contact with criminals and makes more profits for smugglers.
When a drug dealer gets arrested in some police districts, the dealer's residence is often burglarized soon thereafter by thieves who are contacted by a police officer who receives his cut from the burglary 🙈🙉🙊
I wish we had more intellectual figures today like Ayn Rand, who think in first principles, not by whim, emotion, & political expedience.
Yes, you can allow drugs, but you also have to stop the government from spending taxpayer money on rehab, maintenance, and other measures. It is time for government to get out of the job of bailing people out of the problems they created, and let the consequences take precedence; whether it be drug use, a burdensome school loan, mortgage, or whatever.
that's your opinion
Tax on drugs should be used for rehabilitation
Should he be able to decide what the money from his taxes go to? @robinsss
Take a trip to Portland Miss O’Connor
And that is the difference between Republicans,who claim to be conservative and claim to want a small un intrusive government, and Libertarians who are actual conservatives and truly do want a small un intrusive government.
conservative means practices ,system. and values that were traditional at the time of the French revolution
that would not include use of Marijuana cocaine , or opioids
@@robinsss Yes,and all drugs were legal before 1913. The constitution says nothing about drugs,therefore they fall under the 10th amendment which is why a constitutional amendment had to be passed to outlaw alcohol and another one passed to make it legal again. No amendments were passed for the other drugs,therefore the federal drug laws against them are unconstitutional.
@@boataxe4605 but having all drugs legal is a liberal position which is why drug prohibition was an idea presented by conservative leaders
@@robinsss Those “Conservative” leaders were not actually conservatives,they were people who wanted to force their religious and moral beliefs upon others,and they took over the Republican Party.
@@robinsss Those “Conservatives” were actually not conservative, they were people who wanted to force their religious and moral beliefs upon others,and they took over the Republican Party.
Why should a non drug user pay for recreation gone wrong? Legalized drugs have been tried by many different cultures and failed, the Chinese opium wars and opium dens. But if we are going to legalize drug consumption then make the supply of any drug totally legal and open ( cigarettes) . Including even possible lethal doses of drugs like fentanyl , what is lethal for an addict? It is should be the consumers responsibility to control their drug use and treat an overdose. How do we have tests on the use all vehicles and machinery?
Note: All narcotics; heroin, morphine, cocaine and laudanum were once available from the Sears, Roebuck mail-order catalogue - and we had no drug crime and accidental overdoses were extremely rare. Just sayin…
No, a non-user shouldn't be forced to pay for a user's problems. That's an issue of socialism being evil, not of prohibition being good.
Rand wrote about this phenomenon in Atlas Shrugged (20th Century Motor Co) and in some articles. It amounts to chaining everyone together, thus making entire societies easier to control. "One neck for one leash."
Legalization (and decriminalization) haven't failed unless they are done halfway. Then, yes, it can fail to achieve stated goals, but succeed very well in the unstated goal of giving the ruling class more power or wealth.
The "war on drugs" is a recent invention. In the US (and likely UK/Ireland, Europe, and much of the world) drugs were simply legal and the problems were few and small. Then alcohol prohibition created the Al Capones, and drug prohibition created MS13, and Colombian gangs, and most of the rest.
I've come to the rather grim conclusion that most people can't really be classified as "adults". :/
It’s interesting that liberals, who tend to have beliefs at odds with Rand, took her advice about decriminalizing drugs. However, they didn’t listen to her part about holding drug addicts accountable for their other crimes.
This is the opposite of what's happening in vancouver. In Vancouver all the drugs are available but there's no forced treatment when people are obviously in trouble. Rand's perspective is that the government does need to step in when there's a danger
No, only for minors. She was very clear on that and it's justified because they aren't old enough to sign a binding contract since they can't be bound to anything. I'd argue though that the age could be lower with sufficient education about the drug.
As it stands today decriminalization does not seem to fare that well.
Maybe it is because of human nature or because of the legal framework around decriminalized or legalization of drugs.
I think current legalization or decriminalization efforts always seem stifled by not freeing the market enough and adding high taxes to those drugs at the same time thereby making it hard to compete with the black market.
Eactly right. You can't do things like that in half measures. Unless you _want_ it to fail.
@@VaraLaFey '''''''' You can't do things like that in half measures'''''
like. Canada and Oregon
@@robinsss Here in Vegas pot has been legal a few years now. Word is that it's still cheaper on the street (I can't smoke it due to weird effects, so I don't keep up with prices).
I would guess the reason is that it's not really decriminalized or legalized. It's _partially_ decrim/legal, but the damned regulations are working against the newfound partial freedom.
@@VaraLaFey no
marijuana is fully legal in Las Vegas
the voters have organize and tell their state reps that they want them to reduce the taxes. to the same level as alcohol
that would severely damage the black market
It shouldn't be in public spaces. Just like with getting drunk it should be something people do in private behind closed doors.
Heh. Badass answer.
Like anything in life, if rules and limitations are instituted on certain things, people will always try to break the rule.
But if there were no rules, there's none to break. It's just how the human psyche works.
I understand there's no limitation on drugs in Portugal and, funny enough, drug use is not a problem at all for the Portugese government.
she didn't support anarchy
just liberty
I tend to disagree with absolutism. The trouble with legalizing drugs is that it opens the door to marketing. All good entrepuners look to expand markets whether its soda pop,
jeans, or drugs. While I would agree that we should all hold ourselves to high standards, the reality that it's pretty much a curve. We don't need to expose those on the lower end to self destructive and societal damaging temptations.
by that logic we should ban alcohol and porn and social media and probably a lot of other things depending on what is being deemed to be "societally damaging"
@@bob-km4uq There are degrees of poison.
Yeah... brilliant.... because without advertising kids today know nothing about drugs... they have no clue what's out there... but once drugs become legal and they are advertised kids will find out about those nasty drugs.
Do you people live under a rock somewhere? Do you even THINK before spouting your ignorance?
@@xfhghe the problem is its arbitrary and not based on logic but your biased opinion. it is morally wrong to force everyone to comply. that is why if you cannot persuade people then using authoritarian force against it even for their own sake is a moral evil. treating society like children who cant make their own decisions and be held accountable for their actions is no way to run a society.
@@johnnynick3621 thats a weak argument. first off kids do know about it because the internet exists and secondly we already have advertising for all kinds of "bad" things so by that logic you make it sound like we should ban advertising period. you cant just nitpick at the possibility that more kids will discover drugs because of what they saw on tv. and banning those drugs all together isnt the answer.
I've been saying for decades that if drugs were legalised they would go away. It might take a generation, but it would happen. Legal drugs wouldn't be cool, so the pushers would lose the children at a stroke. Addicts would be able to get their fixes at pharmacies so crime would drop overnight.
The other moral issue is the theft and murder the addicts are prepared to commit in order to pay for their addiction. Does she advocate that acting after the crime is better than prevention?
Having read Atlas Shrugged I can see how correct Ayn Rand was about governments but as with all things surely it is a matter of balance.
its not something you can prevent. making it illegal doesnt prevent it all it does is shift it from official sources to non official sources. when you take away individual responsibility people are more prone to lose control as they have a safety net. if something is paid for by tax for example there is no accountability and so state funded projects are vandalized and so forth etc. its all bad and whatever the solution is it must be done privately and individually not by the government.
@@lilyscarlet2584 Then give us the right to carry weapons and use lethal force to protect ourselves, our families and our property after all, by your reasoning the government can't be responsible for our safety so we must do it ourselves.
@@JohnWilliams-iw6oq So carry a weapon and use it to protect yourself and those you care for on your own property and of those who are like-minded.
@@JohnWilliams-iw6oq yes that or hire a private police firm. or if a society wants it they can have a donation based one. there are other ways to collect money than tax.
@@JohnWilliams-iw6oq Rand supported the NAP. so that includes the ability to own a gun
What about 2nd hand smoking?
Overblown panic marginal-issue.
You have every right to smoke in your own home, business or car, but not in someone else's w/o permission. In public, you have the right to smoke wherever it's not intruding on anyone who doesn't want the intrusion.
Most anti-smoking laws are pure tyranny, albeit relating to a more trivial issue than speech, RKBA, and such. That's one reason to be vigilant against tyranny on trivial issues: it's used as trial-run and as precedent for tyranny on more important issues.
@@VaraLaFey No its not I have experianced it and it is harmful.
@@federalisticnewyorkians4470 What was the harm?
@@VaraLaFey It gives trouble breathing. I was in Berlin outside a shop and I could barely breath my eyes were literally watering from the smoke. Another time I was walking around in London and could hardly breathe at all. It was a bloody pain.
I just want to ban it in public open spaces not inside homes or cars or private buisness because I understand that’s not the domain of government but in public spaces it should be made illegal.
She didn't take in consideration that legalization would facilitate ruthless adults selling to minors. Highly overrated intellectual. Just finished reading fountain head: flat characters living predictable lives.
You're too unintellectual to understand her.
she mentioned that children are the exception and we have an epidemic of that right now. if it were going through official sources then it would be easier to track and far more kids would be saved. closing the doors to private markets opens the doors to black markets.
@@lilyscarlet2584 keep on dreaming.
@@reneburger4317 where do you thing these drugs are coming from since it is illegal. its not coming from our own institutions. its coming over the border and distributed by dark channels. maybe some small percentage is coming from within but that isnt as important as the fact that its being distributed under the radar. at least if it were above the radar then it would be transparent.
@@lilyscarlet2584 Not true, legalization means more drugs everywhere.
Need to get rid of the welfare state first.
on a list of national priorities reducing crimes related to drugs in high crime areas is more important than protecting a few dollars in your paycheck from the government
@@robinsss a few dollars? 75% of the federal budget is transfer payments
@@toolboxnj does the federal government take 75% of your weekly paycheck?
@@robinsssBetween Federal, State, local, sales, gasoline and property taxes plus the expenses businesses add to their prices to cover their tax costs we are paying out over 50% of our income to government.
You might not mind but I do. Using government to force me to support YOUR whims is evil.
Here is what I say about the war on drugs:
"Damned if the government tries to fight drug sale and use, and damned if it does not." Either way, it is hopeless.
why is it damned if it does not.?
Hard to disagree with her logic . Also hard to disagree with the results of her views in Portland and Kensington PA. I used to hold almost identical views, but facts on the ground made me change my mind
Decriminalization isn't legalization. It also comes with other things like prohibiting pitching a tent on the sidewalk.
Right, but her logic included proper policing and protection of the public from criminals under the influence, and that isn't happening in Portland.
If just one small area decriminalizes, it's going to attract users from all the nearby areas. And decrim still won't affect the price until people in that small area start manufacturing the area's own drugs. I'm guessing that's still illegal.
The problem in Oregon is that the criminal distributors were not put out of business since distribution was still illegal. If that had happened with weed anywhere, it would have been a similar disaster since the criminals would strike it rich even as their criminal activity skyrockets all over the state.
@@Bit-while_going I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not following your statements. Which "criminals" do you mean? The political "criminals" whose "crime" is to disobey the unilateral edicts of our ruling class? Or the actual _criminals_ who steal and murder in the course of their trade?
Do remember: no victim, no crime.
Hard to disagree with her logic. Also hard to win an election with this stance.
She was not a political activist, she was philosophical one!
Yes because most people are stupid
Not true that they can't get elected on this. If they say it as well as Rand does here, and if they connect it to individual rights, they might have a chance. Wherever there's injustice, we speak up now regardless of an arguments "electibility." If the argument is correct, it still needs to be said, regardless of its popularity.
@@RogerFusselman I wish more people felt that way. Do what is right...always.....regardless of how it might LOOK to others.
Attitudes change. More people may adapt such attitudes/beliefs.
Aaghhh! She blew a great opportunity to say that there are lots of problems in life, including moral traps and pitfalls like drugs, where people need help and guidance, and though government is not a legitimate provider, there should be a free market in providers, one of which is the ARI.
the issue presented to her was drug prohibition
she addressed it
@AynRandInstitute
Hard to disagree when it stays on personal problems, but when it become a societal issues (ex : used💉💉 in the streets and being a treat to public safety, kids): what would be the Ayn Rand stances on protecting the public like in my case cited?
Listen to it again.
@@jacktribble5253 I have clearly listen…
It clearly don’t state the problem. I know her views would say that government has a role to protect citizens.
But we live in a world that some clowns are mayors and do nothing because it hurts their bleeding hearts leftist ideology.
What is the proper role of government in the specific issues of 💉💉 in the streets?
The owner of the street or the building will have to decide what to do with drug users on his property.
She already answered your question about kids. But as to needles in the streets, this is simply a property rights issue. Under capitalism, every square inch of land in America would be privately owned. It is up to the property owners to decide how to deal with needles on their streets.
@@dalton8281thank you!
This is exactly would be the perfect answer!
The problem with Ayn's view is that "adults" using drugs don't just ruin their own lives. That self-destruction unavoidably extends to family, community and more.
Government has the right to intervene in some acts of such ruination, but not in the drug sales or use. For just one reason, not all drug use and sales lead to such ruination in the first place.
Unavoidably? Wrong. It is possible to use drugs and not even ruin your OWN life.
@@lucid227 Yup. And Jordan Belfort drove that Lamborghini home without ANY damage. 😂
@@SimonSezSo He's not the rule for everyone.
You're not a scientific thinker, are you?
drug use itself does not ruin the lives of others
Does it not affect minors when parents are dysfunctional because of drugs? Who protects the children then ?
Great question. It's sad that anyone can reproduce when only 50% have the intellectual capacity to raise and guide them.😂
Alcoholics have been around for thousands of years. Government would protect abused minors.
The government with child neglect laws.
This is not the reason to ban drugs. By the same logic you would want to ban everything that could potentically harm a child through parents.
The government takes action against people who endanger others.
I've been saying this for years and I come from a family of law enforcement. I'm not in that profession. My views align with hers on this.