There is no such thing as a safe horse

I am sorry but Alfred Kinsey made exactly the same arguments about the prohibition of paedophilia. The harm comes from its prohibition, that in real cases on 15% of children affected suffer long term abnormalities/psychological problems, that it would be better to criminalise the cases under rape and assault laws where evidence of violence and coercion are involved and turn a blind eye to the rest etc etc.

Advocates for legalising child pornography have a similar raft of arguments about control and regulation and accepting it as reality. It would allow the children's health and wellbeing to be monitored, regular health checks etc, criminalise the rape kidnapping and murder and sort out the real genuine paedophiles from the child abusers who are, of course, not really paedophiles . So the two go hand in hand. I am quite happy to oppose both on the grounds that :

1)it sounds like corporate expansionism and spin.

2)It will entrench the criminal market rather than destroy it. In fact it will merely redefine it. You will just have a bunch of smartly dressed gangsters profiting from it.  On Youtube there is video footage of a "Weed" bust in Amsterdam which is 5 minutes of illegal plants being thrown out of a window. Despite the liberal policies being carried out.

Your final point about the state limiting choice should also be extended to the right to view child pornography if you want to be consistent. You can quite legally watch fantasy acts of rape and sado masochism online (as they are portrayed by consenting adults) yet animated/drawn portrayals of sexual activity involving children is prohibited even though no harm was involved in its making, its distribution or its use. In that respect Sean Gabb has a point, but it is a distinctly queasy one and not a road I would like to see society venture down.

As for the prohibition of drugs, I am in favour of it because history shows that the alternative is far, far worse. The proceeds were previously used to fund Colonial Expansionism, now it would be used to fund Corporate Expanisionism. I find it bizzarre that an anti capitalist would not see that. 

On the whole I think my position is considerably more consistent than yours. If you believe that wasting money fighting an equally futile "War" on child pornography is valid, then I have the equal right to support equally futile "Wars" on other criminal markets. Besides, as I have said, the situation is far healthier in the more general world view under prohibition than it was prior to prohibition. Unless you can point to countries which have 27% of their populations addicted to Heroin that is. 

http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/opi010.htm

I reached the same conclusions as Sean Gabb several years ago and have beat a hasty retreat from his current mode of thinking when I thought through the implications. 

But comments like "billious crap" are not ad hominen?

If you put a dot between "Libertarian" and "Blogspot" you should see it.

I think you are demonstrating spectacular naivety. Of course Multinational corporations will want to control and distribute this lucrative market. They will be the only people with the sufficient power and financial resources to be able to do so. Then that will involve marketing and advertising etc. The whole point of this exercise is to set up a lucrative "recreational" drugs market, profit before people.

"Fair Trade Cocaine"? Something with an estimated 75% addiction rate? Are you really serious. I should lay off the weed if I was you. I really don't think you have any idea what you are advocating here.

If you want to grow weed in a window box that is up to you, just don't whine to us when you are arrested for it. It is your informed choice to go against the law, so live with the potential consequences.

Why should society have to "mangage" and sweep up the stupidity of a load of  morons who think they know better than other people? They made the choice, they should live with it. And again you seem to be scrupulously avoiding the secondary impacts on children being born with addicts as parents, for example. A daughter being deprived of her mother, because that mother has a Cocaine habit which come first in every equation? 

So it is none of my business why somebody blows drugs out of the arses but it is my business if they look at certain websites? What a peculiar series of values that reflects. It can go two ways on that, either it should be nobodies business what a person does in the privacy of their home (the Libertarian position) or it is the business of the state to monitor and prosecute both. There is a profound difference between consuming and perpetrating something. What social harm does somebody choosing to download animated child pornography pose? Aside from the (in Liberarian terms) "irrational" "bigoted" and "unscientific emotional" response it gets? Yet somebody playing around with Class A drugs should not be a matter for social concern. Oh purlease, apply a little consistent thought. 

I must say, though, that your position is pretty heartless, given that a great many people turn to these things in times of crisis. You should check out a book called "Stuart- A Life Backwards" to see an example of somebody who used drugs to cover up a hell of a lot of bad experiences. In your view such things are, of course, irrelevant to the equation as long as your corporate pals are able to make a shedload off their backs. Typically Libertarian. To tackle the effect you need to tackle the cause.

If people want to blow drugs out of their arses that is their choice, if people get their kicks from downloading images of children being raped, that is their choice. Both activities are limited and prescribed by the state equally without much effect in their consumption levels and both, in my opinion, deserve to remain that way.  

Thank you for your patronisation. It is really isn't needed. I suggest you go and look into recent findings concerning paedophilia in the natural world. Starting with bonobo chimpanzees for whom sex is a natural bonding communitarian process involving every concievable combination. For them it is natural behaviour. So your argument drawn from nature is false analogy.

The issue is here is about the degree to which the state has the right to interfere with personal liberties. If the state has the right to interfere and monitor people's computers (which you suggest it has) then it also has the right to interfere in other areas of your life. It is interesting that you seem to want to dodge that very basic premiss which is, of course the foundation of Libertarian thought in  the first place.

As to the rest of your pseudo-intellectual  self justifying nonsense, I assume that you are a drug abuser and therefore have a vested interest. Asking the advice of junkies on drugs policy is rather like asking paedophiles about child care policies. I don't listen to Nambla on the age of consent issue and I don't listen to Transform on Drugs policies.I would like to think that most sensible people would do the same.

But it is interesting to see the amount that "the state" is blamed for just about every evil here. No room for individual choice or responsibility? "I got hit by a car crossing the road on a green light" Blame the state!! "I am a long term drug addict who used to blow speedballs out of my arse every Saturday night" Blame the State!!

There was talk some time ago about "chadults", people who by the age of forty still behaved like children and refused  to accept responsibilty for their own actions. Seems pretty much the case here.

So please feel free to continue blowing whatever mixture of narcotics takes your fancy out of every orifice, it makes no difference to me. Anyway I'm off down the rehab centre. I could do with a really good laugh and there's no better place to go to see formerly arrogant party troupers getting their comeuppance.  Perhaps I'll see you both down there, one day?  

Actually I think you would be better off being wary of the kind of people who hang around Libertarian Forums myself. Druggies and Kiddyfiddlers seem to be the main constituent. I mean let's face it, any group of people who enabled Mary Ruwart to be voted as presidential candidate knowing her views on the illegality of child pornography and the potential harms to the children involved must be seriously lacking in critical faculties. Unless, of course, they tacitly support  her. Like these guys seem to under "youth":

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/291/euro_manifesto.html

Note they also want to end the "War" on drugs.

Shame about the other, more costly "War" though, eh?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-16-child-porn_x.html

Indeed ,even the Paedophile party that formed in Holland a few years back wanted drugs legalised. So there clearly is a link between the two issues. My guess, being the "evils of prohibition".

Though to be fair to Ruwart though, her position is typically Kinseyan. The sentence preceding the one quoted runs: "Any child who is forced to undergo acts that involve coercion and force should be protected under the assault laws." Which is how Kinsey would have it. He also declared the evil side of paedophilia to be the result of its prohibition, not the activity itself. So,again, the arguments are exactly the same. So how many more links between the two topics would you like me to provide?

Now, after your last hilarious little rant are you going to tell me whether the state has the right to bug and monitor an individual's computer? It does seem to be a gross intrusion of privacy really. And Libertarian logic (foetid though it may be) would dictate the same. 

The problem is that Libertarianism is so fashionable among the well heeled and brainless at the moment, the more axiomatic, darker conclusions it arrives at eventually are well hidden under all the evangelical spin.Those of us who followed the intellectual bus journey to its final destination came back very quickly indeed. Still I'm sure you will get there yourself eventually. 

Some pretty damning stuff there. Shame it wasn't published.

Anyway what has that got to do with the central point as to whether the state has the right to monitor and bug an individual's computer?

If you can't even defend that transgression of personal freedom, your views on narcotic abuse are pretty irrelevant anyway.

Oh, I think the point is obvious enough. It is probably your clouded brain that cannot see it. If, on the one hand, you hold that State intervention is a no no in the case of people drugging themselves up to the eyeballs to the point where their anti social behaviour impacts on their family and friends, then, on the other, you allow it to ciminalise somebody with a penchant for illegal websites who's actions impact on nobody else, your position is a trifle inconsistent.

Why are you accepting what the State declares to be off limits as valid in one case but not valid in the other?   Surely a purely rational, scientific outlook would not allow such a contradiction? Or is merely the simple case that it fits your own prejudices and ethical outlook to call in State intervention and the criminal justice system when your philosophical approach starts to lead into waters you find hard to tread.

If you were to be in the slightest bit consistent you would be saying that what a person chooses to view on their computer should not be a matter for State intervention. The ultimate end of which will lead you to advocating the decriminalisation of child pornography. I think Jock Coats is well aware of this fact which is why he would rather not clarify his position.

So you can see no distinction between possession and manufacture then? Fine, suits me perfectly.

As for your druggie myths about drug abuse affecting nobody else, prior to prohibition, your beloved party aids rendered 27% of the Chinese male population redundant. So er..... no impact on any but the user? Don't think so somehow.

Oh by the way, there's a great new drug called "Gramoxone" doing the rounds. It gives you a REALLY GREAT FEELING MAN, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN!! You really should investigate it. 

Oh but what about taking in notions of probability and likely outcomes into consideration? We have a Humean idea what the likely effects of certain drugs on certain individuals is going to be, (it is supposedly what the classification system is about) and if a sample of individuals demonstrates that more harm than good comes from the general consumption of said substance then society has the ethical right to declare that off limits.

It is largely because of the effects experienced at the end of the 19th century that bans on both twenty four hour alcohol and narcotic content were pushed through Parliament. The problem you have is that you are taking the specific into account and avoiding the general.

Your position is very similar to Kinsey suggesting that only paedophilic cases where coercion and violence were involved should be prosecuted. The rest he counted as a victimless crime and went as far as to say that 85% of his sample suffered no ill effects at all. What effects they did suffer, he put down to prohibition.

Sorry but you cannot escape the parallels in thinking.