But you're not and you said it anyway. Most Americans (as you'll see in November) don't suffer from your delusion and are far more concerned about stopping the socialist welfare state agenda and libtards' relentless drive to control more and more of our lives.
More so than you are with the U.S. Constitution. One thing I wish for is a government more in line with what our founding fathers intended. So do most other Americans. We won't get there in one election but the next one will at least move us in the right direction.
Our founding fathers made much of their wealth distilling. I say, if people want to cure their pains by condensing Advil into a smokeable substance, go ahead. But, you're rehabilitation is on your own dime. And fear the wraith of God those who victimize the innocent and the virtuous to feed their habit.
My version of a perfect set of laws would be something along the lines of this: If something you do causes pain or suffering to another person you are prosecuted. If not, you are free to do whatever. If you are a murderer, pedophile, rapist, and there is conclusive 100% evidence to convict you, your life gets ended right there. Do not pass go, do not collect 100 dollars, its a bullet in your head, and game over. Obviously we would have to figure out guidelines but that is the gist of how i think. Basically in my perfect world a person would be free to do what they want, but when their lifestyle impedes on someone elses and causes someone else damage the consequences will be brutal, and final. I dont get why we prosecute people who choose to do certain things to themselves, when their choices have absolutely no effect on anyone else. I agree with the poll, the only thing which could actually bring us down as a country at this point would be our government, there is no terrorist nation in the world which could destroy the United States at this point, but a bunch of thieving politicians sure could.
I'm a bit ambivalent about the whole concept of government executions, but the 'Hello plan for a better nation' would be massive improvement over how things are today. There are murderers like Van Der Sloot, where I could easily sympathize with the need to put a bullet in the scumbag's head, and there are 'murderers' like many of those seen on the show 'The First 48' (reality show about cops catching killers) where the lines become far more gray. On the last episode I saw, the 'murder victim' had robbed a female acquaintance and was threatening to repeat the act two weeks later. Her brother went over to this predator's crib and shot him dead. Murder? U.S. courts sure think so, and he probably deserves <i>some</i> kind of punishment for not handling the situation in a better way, but my point is that there are murders and there are <b>murders</b> if you know what I mean. I'd probably also give an out to the rare pedophile who <i>wants</i> to molest children but somehow manages to restrain himself from ever doing so. Overall though, Hello's plan is a winner in my book.
Like i said there still has to be tweaks to the specific situations, which you allude to infact i would let a person who reacts violently to a crime which happened to them/their family off the hook, eye, for an eye type thinking. But it would have to be 100% provable, for the most part what i am implying in terms of a bullet in the head would only apply to heinous criminals/thugs, there is no reason we should spend millions if not billions of dollars to support life for certain scumbags, just as there is no reason we should continue to spend billions prosecuting people who pose no threat to anyone but themselves.
I know it's not an available choice, and I'm not sure I'm so much terrorized as I am saddened with foreboding, but Mankind's vacuuming of the world's oceans has been on my mind for a few years now.
How about the businessman who is so good that his rivals go bust, lose their jobs, homes, families, commit suicide in despair. I am sure lots of people experience suffering whenever they hear death metal or rap music. Ditto for strict religious people when they see women in bikinis on the beach. Muslims and Chrisitians may be offended when Richard Dawkins describes their god as a genocidal bullying madman. There are plenty of legitimate actions that cause harm, pain, suffering and distress to other people. The libertarian creed you quote sounds good in theory, but applying it fairly in the real world is no easy task. The fact is that almost every action we take has some impact on other people, and not everyone impacted will take kindly to it. What elevates someone's mere dislike to an actual moral wrong? IMO, nothing but pure subjective moral opinion. Free speech today permits mortal insults that would have gotten you killed in a duel 200 years ago by the very authors of the constitution that enshrined that principle. Basically your principle is almost useless in deciding what the law should actually be. Every illiberal person could come up with some "harm" that is allegedly incurred whenever someone else exercises their rights. The "my rights stop at the point where my fist collides with your nose" principle is a toothless paper tiger.