Social Libertarian 10/22/2013

I recently finished listening to Ann Coulters How to Talk to A Liberal (If You Must) and she said
she had a falling out with the libertarian party because of their insistence on making drugs legal. She
said that as long as she had to pay the medical costs for people who did drugs then she was against
them being legal. Hmm, well then I suppose she should support Mayor Michael Bloombergs bans on
soda and smoking, correct? After all, these items cause health costs to go up, and thus if she is
consistent she should be in agreement with these liberal policies. Of course, politicians are usually just
opportunistic, and the problem with politicians isnt that they are ideologues, it is the fact they dont
stick consistently to their ideologies.
I was speaking with a friend today about the problems I had with these social control policies,
which I said is mainly caused by liberals (she claims to be conservative) but is also nearly just as badly a
problem on the rightist side, what with their attack on violent video games and war on drugs. As I
mentioned the stupidity of the soda laws in New York, she compared it with speed limits and smoking
bans. I said that I felt there was some difference, because with smoking one can make the argument
that second-hand smoke doesnt give those affected by it a choice. However, after some discussion, I
agreed that it should be left up to the establishment. If those that dont want to be bothered by smoke
are aware that the establishment allows it, then they will know in advance that they can go to another
place and this will cause the establishment to lose business, or gain business if more smokers are in
favor of it.
With speed limits, I think the problem is that it is something that must be regulated due to the
danger of driving and the fact that it puts other lives at risk. It would be like saying someone has the
right to wave a gun around in public as long as they took responsibility if the trigger went off and
someone got blasted. So then there seems to be a gray area with me when it comes to an issue such as
public intoxication. Should it be allowed because the drunk may not hurt anyone and may be a friendly
drunk or should it be stopped on the basis that it is like waving a loaded gun around and not knowing if
the person is going to pull the trigger or not?
Back to driving, I am also against seat belt laws such as click it or ticket. I think the problem with
a lot of these regulations is that it has the interests of the reputation of the area over the interests of
the individual or even actual human beings. If more deaths occur it looks bad on the county or state, so
they have to take away our freedoms for the good name of their dear landmass. People should have the
freedom to make stupid decisions. As long as it doesnt affect the safety of the people in their vicinity,
why should we tell them how to live their lives?
Another issue my friend brought up was Michelle Obamas school lunch program. I havent
done much research on it, but I think I might be willing to make an exception for what freedoms are
allowed to those who are not yet considered adults, especially when they are going to a compulsory
establishment such as school. I believe students and minors should be encouraged to make healthy and
smart decisions and then when they become adults we take the chains off and let them choose to either
stick with the training we provided or break from what is traditionally considered healthy, moral, or
safe. You must only aim your care at the root, but when the plant grows you must set it free to become
what it will with the training and nutrition you provided it, that is what being an individual is about
taking in the advice and support of others, but only sifting it through for the gems that help you in your
journey to pave the path you want to through life. You cant build fences around the trails so that a
person has only the illusion of exploration.
I might be for allowing adults to allow their sons and daughters to eat whatever they like and
even having a few drinks of alcohol or marijuana. Of course, I dont support negligence by the parent or
an uncaring attitude, but if the parent thinks the kid is responsible enough to handle something, they
have the right to let them play violent video games and whatnot. Thats another problem, taking away
peoples rights in the name of think of the children! This isnt a childrens world where adults are
intruders. If that was the case, no one would tell us to grow up! Children have to learn to live in the
real world, and adults have the right to try to shelter their kids from it, but they shouldnt have the right
to change the world into some fantasy land so that their kids dont have to see that Santa Clause doesnt
exist. And what is the deal with shielding children from profanity and sex? God forbid children grow up
to have sex and say fuck, it would be the end of the world! Actually if children didnt grow up and
decide to fuck it really would be the end of the world. But really, arguments against cursing seems like
circular reasoning. I cant curse because a kid may hear it, and that kid might curse and another kid may
hear it, and then they start murdering people?
One final problem I have is with politically correct speech and speech labeled as hate speech.
Why cant people say whatever the fuck they want as long as it doesnt demand an incitement to
action? I realize that shouting fire in a theatre is bad because it demands a disruptive action on the part
of those in the theatre. I realize that death threats and urging violence is wrong, because it leads to
people fearing for their life from the possibility of being killed by action promised via speech. However,
if you merely want to say the word nigger or fag or retard or whatever the fuck you want to say,
you should be free to do it as long as there is no incitement to action. Besides, a person could be using
it for satire or comedy or be using the word to get a point across. Not to mention the other problems
we have seen that come up when you outlaw hate speech. What about holocaust deniers being put in
jail? If questioning historical accuracy now leads to imprisonment that seems to be just as dangerous as
the totalitarianism that the law aims to prevent from happening again. Why should holocaust denial be
tied to jew hate anyway? That would be like saying that if I doubt some nut jobs claim about Area 51
and alien autopsies that that would mean I harbor some deep resentment towards alien life forms.
I also feel that all these firings and censure that occur as a result of politically incorrect speech is
a horrible thing, because it is divisive, it allows people to hide who they really are, and it makes our
language about tip-toeing over glass. This control of language is annoying, because we keep having to
shift our euphemisms to something new, because what was once the nice way to say a word is now the
offensive way to say the word. Retarded was the nice way to say Idiot at one point, but now
because it has been said in a hateful way enough times, it is considered more offensive than the word
idiot. So, the real problem seems to be the intention of the individual and not the word itself.
Homosexual people have claimed the word gay, but Ive heard people say this is gay pejoratively
enough times, and so have others, that Im sure I could see it being labeled offensive in the future, and
being replaced. How many times are we going to do this lemon dance with words? Just accept the fact
that people are going to call you a midget or a wench or a retard. Your problem should be with hateful
people and their horrible intentions and not with a specific word. No matter what word you use to
distinguish yourself as a homosexual, a woman, an ethnic minority, or a short individual, you will have
some asshole attack you for it, and they can make fun of you using your own (re)claimed words. So stop
worrying about the fucking words!
also it is divisive because, for instance, some groups are less politically protected than others.
If I am hanging out with a blonde, I dont feel a strong compulsion to avoid making blonde jokes, and the
blonde probably hasnt been instructed to take much offense at them. The same goes for jokes about
ladies in general. I can usually feel comfortable around women while making jokes at their expense
because most of them know it is just a fun ribbing. However, plenty of people feel awkward around
black people, because we have been pilloried with white guilt. Black people have been equally
instructed in how horrible the dreaded n-word is and how white people are holding them back, and
thus it doesnt lead to equality, it leads to awkward feelings when hanging out together. You cant help
but notice a person is black and you have to be careful with words you use. Especially annoying is
when people say that we should stop using the word niggardly or words like it. That shit drives me
insane.
All drugs should be legalized, if this leads to a family suffering because of one of the adults
addictions, this should be handled in a different way, and besides that person probably wasnt a good
parent in the first place. Prostitution should be legalized, it is no more a blow to dignity than it is being
yelled at by some douchebag as you make him a cup of coffee or bring him his food, and better
regulation would make it safer for the women anyway. As long as it only affects you directly, even if the
argument can be made that others can be affected indirectly, it should be made legal, and other means
should be made to combat the harmful side-effects that may occur as a result in a minority of individuals
that try to use their freedom in a means that is harmful to others.
I know it may seem weird for a determinist like myself to be for individual freedom when I dont
even believe in free will, but I do believe it is better to have a world where people can be determined by
internally generated choices rather than externally generated choices. I think it leads to more diversity
and a life more worth living.
-Greg dratsab Huffman

(11/7/2013) In a GameFAQs discussion about Kanye West wearing a Confederate flag:
GregHuffman Posted 11/6/2013
A symbol isn't racist, it is a combination of the person's intent and the way a person interprets it. Who
really cares about any symbol in itself? Even a swastika has good interpretations, but people let one bad
depiction destroy anything.
Cynyn Posted 11/6/2013
Ya know, I think attempted genocide has a funny way of making people hate the symbol of those who
tried to kill them.
GregHuffman Posted 11/6/2013
Symbols don't belong to people, words don't belong to people, only actions belong to people, and
symbols have no volition. The people that commit crimes are free to use any symbol they want, so does
that make the symbol evil even though it had no choice in the matter?
Funkdamental Posted 11/7/2013
Symbols aren't value-neutral.
GregHuffman Posted 11/7/2013
Yes they are, it's all about how a person interprets them, and to what degree society justifies the
individual to feel this interpretation. If a person was afraid of a certain food because it reminded them
of racism, we would call this a phobia and think it unusual, but if enough people started to associate this
food with racism, we decide to call it a hate-crime to indulge in it or display it. In this way, we will begin
to lose options to "evil". It's like the moment a "symbol" or item just so happens to be something the
bad guy likes, that item is no longer an option... such as the Chaplin mustache.
Don't we need to reclaim these symbols before we lose too many options? But who are we reclaiming
them from? The bad guys are already dead and gone. We are reclaiming them from the collection of
people who allow them to hold negative power in their mind.
Funkdamental Posted 11/7/2013
Are you suggesting that if someone spray-paints a swastika on a headstone in a Jewish cemetery, it
shouldn't be treated as a hate crime because hey, that symbol could mean anything and the relatives
should be no more offended by it than they would be by a circle?
GregHuffman Posted 11/11/2013
Sorry for late response. We have to make assumptions, and also account for probabilities. The chances
of the swastika being a Jain (or other) swastika that is being portrayed there seems highly unlikely, and if
the perpetrator made this case it would require some good explaining, I suppose. If the person were not
available to make the argument, we would most likely assume what is the highest probability of the case
(symbol used with the intention of hate). However, in the end, it matters what the intention imbued on
the symbol was, and if the person who uses the symbol isn't there to explain why he used it, then that
meaning can be imbued by those not aware of the conscious value given by the person who planted said
symbol.
This should be more obvious given the topic at hand, unless people are seriously going to entertain the
idea that Kanye is a self-hating black person and that he wishes he could still be a slave.

(1/16/2014) Metaphor for Prostitution
I have been struggling to come up with a suitable metaphor to explain a certain absurdity of the
anti-prostitution side, and I think I have finally hit upon one. So, one popular argument among them is
that there are many of those in that line of work that are forced into it via illegal human trafficking. This
seems to imply that prostitution isnt intrinsically wrong, but that we should cut off any paths that hold
the possibility of bad consequences. However, I believe to be consistent with this principle, the same
people should hold this to something that is even more dangerous.
These people that oppose the legalization of prostitution because of the possibility of forced
human trafficking should also oppose the legalization of alcohol because it could lead to the possibility
of a drunk driver crashing into someone and killing them. Though, it really doesnt make sense, since
having legal alcohol doesnt make it legal to run down people drunk in a car, and legalizing prostitution
wouldnt suddenly justify and/or legalize forcing people against their will into prostitution. The whole
thing is about maximizing rights and freedoms. Allowing prostitution and alcohol for those who choose
it should be the right of the person in charge of the body affected, but crashing into people and forcing
people to do things they dont want to interferes with those peoples rights who didnt choose that for
themselves.
Though, to be fair, that argument about making alcohol illegal to prevent drunk driving holds
more weight than the prostitution version. If you make alcohol illegal, it makes it harder to get into the
hands of potential drivers. But if you illegalize prostitution, you drive customers into the hands of those
shady people who are capable of such monstrous acts.

(3/27/2014) Counter-points to Paul Carrillo on FB in Prostitution Debate
[The actual dates of argument being spread out, starting a few days before the one listed above, but
3/27/2014 is the date I am compiling it here]
"The moral reasons for not allowing prostitution isn't as strong an argument as the health reasons for
not allowing it. Yeah, the 2 parties are consenting to the risks, but thats just plain stupid. The
government should and does prevent people from doing stupid things and this is just one of the many."
Incorrect, people seem to forget about the invention of the condom, and by the way... would you
support the government if they made it illegal to go into a bar and pick out a skanky chick for the night,
because it could be dangerous? Should they tell you what kind of work you can aim for, because the
occupation you desire could be too perilous? I see Chris Hagan agrees with you, he seems to be in
support of the nanny state... ohh, as long as that nanny state protects his values, how noble.
"Condoms break and condoms don't prevent every STD. Lets not be disingenuous, sir."
The probability is very low good sir, and I would still like an answer to my question about being allowed
to pick up slutty women from bars, I don't think that is too hyperbolic.
"If you wanted to say something that was closer. I would say compare it to spitting in someone's mouth
or reusing syringes. That would be a whole lot more honest."
You are trying to say they are more morally equivalent, but that would be to miss the point of the
argument we agreed to... activities that have risky behavior. your original words: " The MORAL reasons
for not allowing prostitution isn't as strong an argument as the HEALTH reasons for not allowing it." (<---
my emphasis added) So, to properly frame the problem, we have to focus on issues that aren't morally
controversial, but that are health risks. How about driving a car? Okay, so we NEED cars for everything,
but why can't the government limit where we are allowed to drive, since it is one of the most dangerous
activities we can engage in. Would you support this, or do you like to drive a lot, and thus you would be
opposed to giving up a freedom that actually affects you personally.
How about owning a pool, did you know it is statistically more dangerous to own a pool than to own a
gun. With all the kids drowning, do you think it would be best to outlaw owning your own swimming
pool?
"we do limit freedoms on driving. you need a license first off. second there are rules on the road for
safety. so long as people obey them, nobody will be hurt. its really quite simple, greg. again, driving a car
isn't analogous to the health risks in prostitution."
That isn't what I mean, what I'm asking is should the government limit how often you can drive and for
what purpose. And yes, I just made the analogy, so obviously the analogy is possible, but you are
welcome to try to refute my analogy, if you can provide any details on how prostitution health risks are
different than driving without invoking morality, it'd be fun to watch.
"having a pool in your backyard isn't analogous to owning a gun. wow, can you give a better analogy
aside from obviously poor ones?"
The funny thing is that isn't even my analogy, I got it from SuperFreakonomics by Steven Levitt. It seems
you really don't understand how analogies work, or you find them very inconvenient to your
philosophical consistency, so you try to brush them off. The point Mr. Levitt was making was that pools
are actually more dangerous than guns to own, because you are more likely to have a kid drown in a
pool than get shot with the gun.
"btw, i don't even believe anyone should be allowed to own a gun at all. just in case you were wondering
about that."
It isn't, which is why I was using the pool as a better example that is less politically polarizing.
"I was giving you an argument against prostitution on the basis that its a health hazard. NOT A MORAL
ARGUMENT."
Yes, which is why I said we need to focus on the health hazard aspects of things like the dangers of car
crashes and swimming pool drownings, whereas you are raving on about drug use, which does have
moral qualms for some people. Please play by your own rules when you set them?
"Please go ask random people to go spit in your mouth, stick yourself with used syringes of drug addicts,
or go to a tattoo artist who reuses his needles. Those are the only things that are truly analogous to the
health risks involved with being a prostitute or as a john."
So if the tattoo artist didn't reuse his needles then it would be okay right? So, if a prostitute insists you
use a condom... HEY I THINK THIS ANALOGY YOU ARE MAKING IS COMING TOGETHER! You seem to be in
favor of regulating the prostitution industry to make sure prostitutes play it safe. If I am wrong here,
then you may want to provide another analogy friendo, because this one works out in my favor. By the
way, if I knew that the tattoo artist was being unsanitary, and I agreed to go along with it anyway, it
should be my burden to bear the risks, and the law need not get involved... let Darwin clean out the
retard genes aye?
"Now, if anyone thinks that engaging in these idiotic activities for the sake of the "free market" to pay for
an orgasm service, then I am sorry but you're just not very bright. There is not much more to it."
Debatable, but even if I did grant you that, why should being stupid be a crime? Besides, if being stupid
was a crime, people would have more serious things to worry about than engaging in prostitution.
"Also, you're committing the Tu quoque fallacy"
Tu quoque is about hypocrisy, like the pot calling the kettle black, however what you are doing is being
logically inconsistent, which is totally different. If I were making a tu quoque statement, I would accuse
you of being a hypocrite for procuring prostitutes, but that isn't what I am doing.
"Pointing out another health hazard doesn't change the fact that something is still a health hazard (on a
much more serious degree, no less)."
So more people die from having sex with prostitutes than drowning? Confirm this with a source please?
Also, again this is a logical consistency thing... why is it okay for one dangerous activity to be banned and
not another one?
"Also, the analogies I've made are showing that the health hazard is the literal contamination of bodily
fluid."
That's superfluously specific, is there any reason why a health hazard involving bodily fluids should be
singled out against every other kind of health risk? What makes it so special that it can't be compared to
car crashes, drowning, electric shock, etc?
"Thats not preventable (thats the whole point of intercourse) and there is no truly safe intercourse.
Surely, you can't miss that."
Would you be willing to legalize handjobs then?
"Also, yes, being stupid is a crime. For example, yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire
is not only stupid, but criminal. Are you going to argue that yelling fire is protected free speech? No,
because your rights end when what would you do puts people (including yourself) in danger."
The primary problem why yelling fire in a theater is not because it is stupid; the problem with it is it
causes a public nuisance and chaos that causes everyone to panic and run out of a building, disrupting
their activities and possibly causing people to get trampled on. Prostitution is a mutual sex act between
two (or more) consenting adults who know what they are agreeing to. So again, I don't have the right to
put myself in danger? So skydiving and bungee jumping should be illegal right?
"Me: Prostitution is a health hazard
Greg: Well, that statement is false, because of swimming pools, ownership of guns, etc etc."
Never said that.
"Disease is far more dangerous since people are not often aware of their infection and thus spread it to
others."
Yet, you single out prostitution as opposed to controlling any other sexual matter. Would you also be in
favor of making every day sanitation legally required? Why not make it illegal to cough on someone? Or
does it only count if someone gets PAID to cough on someone... dunno, trying to figure out your logic,
you seem to think that money makes activities "That already happens. Whats your point?" worse than
when no one gets paid. How do you feel about the porn industry by the way? Should it be legal?
"Would I be okay with legalization of handjobs?
I don't see the point of that, and I don't see how anyone can enforce that a prostitute would only perform
just that. You go ahead and tell me how that would work. Require chastity belts and secured ball gags?
Someone there watching?"
Well, how are they watching in the first place? Either a cop is involved or not, and one guy gets caught
and the other doesn't. How would it be harder to single out handjobs than any other sexual activity a
prostitute engages in? Some could just be taking nude pictures, which is legal anyway... so please
answer my question instead of engaging in circumlocution.
"Go make that dumb analogy to a person with AIDS in africa and see how that holds up."
This is totally irrelevant, what are you even trying to prove?
"Lastly, should it be illegal to pick up a slut at a bar and have unprotected sex with her? That already
happens. Whats your point? Let me take a guess.... Because of X, Y also, right?"
So because it happens anyway then it is okay. And prostitution happens anyway, so it isn't okay. You do
realize that being philosophically consistent is important, no matter how many "false argument" bullshit
you throw at me. If you say "yes murder should be legal on tuesdays" and then say "no murder shouldnt
be legal on mondays" and I say "that isn't philosophically logical or consistent, you can't then say "AHA!
It is a logical fallacy to say that I am being inconsistent!"
"Prove that prostitution isn't a health hazard to the general population and thus rightly should be
allowed."
Is free will a health hazard? Worst case scenario: an infected prostitute agrees of her own free will to
have unprotected sex with a client, and that client doesn't take proper safety measures himself and
agrees of his own free will to fuck this prostitute without a condom, and he gets an STD. He doesn't
know he has an STD, so he goes to pick up women at a bar. He takes that woman home, and that chick
decides to not be responsible, and not make him wear a condom, and so now she gets infected. Thus,
stds could potentially spread.
That is the worst possible scenario I can imagine happening, and of course legalized prostitution would
require regulations. This means that if prostitution was legalized, the prostitute could be held liable for
not informing her client that she was infected, and she could be held liable for not using a condom, just
like a kid who works at McDonalds could get in trouble for not wearing gloves. So, yes... if prostitution
stays illegal, there could be potential health risks... but if it was legalized, these would be minimized.
Speaking of McDonalds and food safety... if all fast food was made illegal, and you could only get your
fatty burgers and grease chicken from shady people in back alleys, do you think that would lead to less
health risks than legalizing and regulating it?

(3/29/2014) Small Note on Racism
The common view on racism seems to be that if you dont know if you are racist or not, you probably
are. However, I think it is the other way, if you dont know if you are racist or not, you probably arent.
People attending KKK rallies, and neo-Nazis arent hesitating one bit in regards to their views on non-
whites. If you hesitate, it is because you are sensitive about what you say about others. Maybe youve
made a few racist jokes to your friends to be edgy, but it isnt a sentiment you hold in your heart. One
of the lefts biggest problems is that it is causing white guilt to get out of hands, and encouraging
minorities to be easily offended. Like this #CancelColbert shit I found out about today. Do these people
really think that Colbert viewers are the types of people who are actively oppressing minorities? Fuck
this shit, with these types around, comedy is going to suffer. Here are some of my counter-points to a
TIME article written by Asian Suey Park:

"Satire Lesson 1: If you need to explain whatever it is that you were trying to do, its not working. Your
audience is telling you that its broken, its old. It needs to be reworked."
Some people also didn't get Bomani Armah's Read a Book, sometimes things just go over a person's
head. I think most people got the satire, but it's a shame you are too worried about being offended to
comprehend when a joke isn't trying to insult you, but stand up for you using irony.
"Satire Lesson 3: If the only people who get your satire are racists might we suggest some soul
searching on your end?"
Yes, The Colbert fans will be attending the next KKK rally I'm sure. Do you really think the liberals that
watch Colbert are going to be the types oppressing minorities? The word "racism" is thrown around so
much, that the real racists are getting a watered-down insult, and that word will cease to summon up
feelings of contempt in people. Why don't you try using the word on people who really do hate his
fellow man, instead of a comedian trying to prove a point?

(6/25/2014) Relative Oppression
There is this silly talk when it comes to reverse-racism. I brought this up a bit in my story
Platos Shack, but I didnt expand on it much. If racism is defined based on the population of the
oppressors, then it seems the number game would be relative. Imagine I am in a room with three other
black people, and one of them says kill that cracker and they all jump on me. White guilt liberals
would say that it wasnt racist, because white people have the power in a general sense. Okay, now
imagine we live in a Universe where there are a majority of planets that also have black people and
white people living on them. It turns out that in these worlds, the general situation is reversed so that it
is dominated mostly by blacks, and it is the white people who are being oppressed there? Would this
change how we view racism on this planet? Would we then say that due to this new information it is
only blacks who can be called racist, and that whites are now immune?
Doubtful. The term reverse-racism would also seem to apply if it was one white guy calling a
group of three black men niggers. But, no, thats just racism. So, we need to do away with this
bullshit term. No matter which race calls which race an insult, or no matter who attacks who, as long as
it is motivated by race hatred, then it should be considered racist. Otherwise, where do we draw the
line on who is the majority and who is in power? The most powerful man in the world right now is a
black man. What happens when Latinos outnumber whites in the world? What happens if blacks
eventually do? Do you think white guilt liberals will care to switch who is tagged with the reverse-
racism moniker? Dont count on it. And any black man (or white liberal) who claims that it wont be
made right until whites have suffered thousands of years of oppression as an equalizer might want to
heed the words of Martin Luther: Human reason is like a drunken man on horseback; set it up on one
side, and it tumbles over on the other.
And a funny thought I just had which involves reincarnation maybe to elucidate the illogical
nature of the whole thing. Imagine a black man who was a slave dying under white oppression only to
later reincarnate as a white man being slain by an angry black man for the horrors his ancestors
committed. Ridiculous right? So, why act as if the whites today are reincarnations of the sperm donor
lineage of the past? Modern whites are innocent, and modern blacks arent being oppressed. Move on.
There is no justice in killing the child of the man who killed your child. If you cant kill the man, then
dont make a scapegoat out of his son, who didnt have a choice in the matter of being born to such an
evil man.