"My sister" libertarian
- Thread starter CBL4
- Start date
-
- Tags
- libertarian sister
Snide
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,198
I don't quite get the explanation of a "my sister" libertarian, so please help me. Is it to rid anyone of the notion that libertarians are pot-smokers, and just want to break laws?CBL4 said:
In other words, if I said, "If I want to smoke pot, I should be able to," some idiot would infer that I just want to smoke pot (I don't), and ignore anything of substance I'd say on politics.
But if I said, "If my sister smoked pot, I'd hate to see locked up for it, as well as YOUR sister if she did too," then perhaps they wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the comment, and actually do some critical thinking.
Am I close?
Exactly.
It is a method of determining what a crime is and what is the appropriate penalty.
If his sister committed murder, he would agree that she should go to jail and would even aid in putting her there. If his sister smoked pot, he would not think she belongs in jail..
Therefore, he believe that murder should be considered a crime with a jail sentence and pot smoking should not be.
CBL
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
CBL4 said:
Good heavens, whatever happened to family values? My sister is an intelligent, decent person. If she felt the need to murder someone, they probably deserved it, and I'd help out with an alibi. Family is supposed to be about covering for each other; there's nothing like a conspiracy to bring everyone closer together.
It would be a plus if you and your sister manage to pin the murder on your worthless cousin, or that bitch of an aunt. That will teach them to say what they said at that wedding back in 1987, and for taking great-granny's china cabinet even though everyone knew it was supposed to go to Mom.
There's no family like a crime family!
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,870
I don't think this works for me... it's not sound to base a system of justice on whether an interested party, such as a family member, would want to see the person go to jail.
I consider myself a fair person, but when someone close to me is in trouble, I tend to hope they avoid it unless it was really hurtful to someone. That doesn't mean that I think, logically, that people should be able to get away with stuff like that. It just means that my family loyalty is a bit stronger than my urge for rule of law. Which isn't horrible, but you can't base a system of law on disrespect for rule of law.
I consider myself a fair person, but when someone close to me is in trouble, I tend to hope they avoid it unless it was really hurtful to someone. That doesn't mean that I think, logically, that people should be able to get away with stuff like that. It just means that my family loyalty is a bit stronger than my urge for rule of law. Which isn't horrible, but you can't base a system of law on disrespect for rule of law.
Perhaps "deserve" is a better word than "want" e.g. would my sister deserve to go to jail for smoking pot? I understand it is not a perfect system but as Snide said it is a good method to promote critical thinking instead of knee jerk reaction.
My brother in law was charged with a serious crime. I did not really want to help him out until I became convince he was innocent. If he had been guilty, he would have deserved to go to jail. This means it really is a crime.
Most of my friends and familly have smoked pot. Society would not be better off if any of them had all gone to jail for it. Therefore, to me, it is not a crime deserving of jail sentence.
CBL
I can see the legitimacy in this line of thought.
On several different threads, I've brought up that Sen. Richard Shelby has always been an ardent support of the Drug War, including the minimum sentencing laws. Yet, when his 32-year-old son was caught at customs with 13 grams of hashish, he didn't spend one hour in jail and didn't incur even the minimum penalty for doing so. Shelby thought that his son was basically a good guy who just made a mistake and so didn't deserve it. And, every single other person who possesses drugs is an evil monster who must be put away for life? (Yes, the next year, Shelby voted for legislation that would make possession of a certain number of doses, which the 13 grams of hashish would qualify as, a felony punishable by life in prison.)
Clearly, this is hyporcisy and nepotism.
On several different threads, I've brought up that Sen. Richard Shelby has always been an ardent support of the Drug War, including the minimum sentencing laws. Yet, when his 32-year-old son was caught at customs with 13 grams of hashish, he didn't spend one hour in jail and didn't incur even the minimum penalty for doing so. Shelby thought that his son was basically a good guy who just made a mistake and so didn't deserve it. And, every single other person who possesses drugs is an evil monster who must be put away for life? (Yes, the next year, Shelby voted for legislation that would make possession of a certain number of doses, which the 13 grams of hashish would qualify as, a felony punishable by life in prison.)
Clearly, this is hyporcisy and nepotism.
Yes, it would be an interesting idea for all legislators (and their families) to serve the time for any drug infraction they have done. We could use polygraph tests to ask them about their drug use. Anyone who failed, would go to jail.
Of course, if they are innocent, they have nothing to worry about.
CBL
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
shanek said:
And if a Libertarian ever was elected to the Senate***, (s)he would do exactly the same thing.
***Cue Twilight Zone music
Art Vandelay
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,787
So family members should be willing to inform on each other, and if they aren't, it must be because the law is unjust? If you saw your sister shoplifting, would you turn her in? What if you saw her speeding? Not reporting all her tips to the IRS? Seems like an appeal to emotion to me.
I'm sure that senators have helped their sons beat rape charges. Hypocrisy, yes, but an argument against rape laws?shanek said:
You think that if a Libertarian were elected to the Senate, he would be an ardent supporter of the War on Drugs?The Central Scrutinizer said:
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Art Vandelay said:
He'd be too busy dodging porcine aviation to support anything.
LostAngeles
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
- Messages
- 10,109
TragicMonkey said:
Now that's just patently absurd. Porcine aviation occurs up in the stratosphere as any one with a first grade education can tell you. And Senators can't fly.
Representatives can, not Senators. Geez. And you claim you learned about our government in high school. I bet you don't even know that this country was founded on nepotism!
Lord, what fools these posters be.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
LostAngeles said:
Yes, but the nepot was hunted into extinction by the early settlers, who wanted to make fancy hats and coats and boas out of its magnificent plumage.
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
Well, "my sister" can count me in on the minor crimes but she's lucky she didn't have "my parents" for a mom and pop. They swore (though never actually had the chance) that they'd turn us in to the cops in half-a-heartbeat if they caught us with so much as a joint.
They never did but in truth, they never really tried.
Now that I think back on it though, I do remember some of my stash ending up unexplainably missing on a somewhat regular basis.
Herb for thought.
They never did but in truth, they never really tried.
Now that I think back on it though, I do remember some of my stash ending up unexplainably missing on a somewhat regular basis.
Herb for thought.
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
Art Vandelay said:
I don't know if he would be or not. It doesn't matter. The point is, if a Libertarian was elected to the Senate***, he would do anything and everything in his power to get his relative off of what ever he was charged with.
***Cue Twilight Zone music
The Fool
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2002
- Messages
- 16,537
What if I talk my sister into street prostitution to fund my lust for powerfull cars... can I still be a libertarian?
After all, why should the government be able to tell me what or what not to do with weaker willed members of my family?
After all, why should the government be able to tell me what or what not to do with weaker willed members of my family?
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Art Vandelay said:
It is an appeal to emotion, but not a fallacy. The argument is if you loved your fellow man as you did your brother or sister (assuming you have siblings and love them) you would apply justice that is merciful. It's really just a variation of "Love thy neighbor."
If my sister was arrested for shoplifting or not reporting tips to the IRS, I would be perfectly fine with her going to jail but I admit that I would not turn her in. If my sister were arrested for smoking pot, I would not think she belonged in jail because she did not hurt anyone. If my sister committed a serious enough crime, I hope that I would turn her in.
As far as it being an appeal to emotion, it is but emotions are part of justice. I love my sister and in a case of a real crime (e.g. assault) my emotions would be mixed. In a case of a non-crime, my emotions would be all crying for her release.
BTW, the author of the commentary implies that he did in fact turn in a familly member for a crime.
CBL
Art Vandelay
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,787
But MY point is that if a Libertarian were to do everything he could to get a relative off of a drug charge, he would not be a hypocrite.The Central Scrutinizer said:
Mycroft
There are several different issues here, and they're all getting mixed up together. One issue is whether things like drug use should be crimes. Another is, once something has been decided to be a crime, what should the punishment be? Another is, given that it is accepted in our society that one has a right to fight accusations of criminal behavior, even if one is guilty, to what extent are others justified in helping one exercise that right? Then there are several other issues.
I don't think that, in any of these issues, the "my sister" argument is very rational. However, I do see that it might be useful in exposing others' irrationality; that is, a person, confronted with the fact that he would treat his sister differently from others, might realize that he should treat others with more mercy. Or he might realize that he should treat his sister with less.
I actually think that there are some raional bases for nepotism, although I agree that it often gets taken too far. I am a better judge of my sister's character than a stranger would be, so an argument can be made that I am justified in taking my judgement to be more binding.