That seems like an excellent philosophy. Particularly, shifting your attention to self-preservation when necessary. I'm not sure I understand it when people mention "interest" in "I'm interested in x subject." I'm more of a level of information kind of person. I can be interested in everything if its viewed from a particular angle or depth. Some topics are just usually viewed in certain angles than others. So, understanding is all you're aiming for?
I'm not sure if its really that fun. There's massive poverty and so many problems involving day to day survival. I don't know where to start. I just like being able to interact with all these different people. I don't like revealing info, yes.
Status? I think I can be second in command but I'm still studying. Don't know how big it is. It depends. There's the core group which is a few thousand and then there's the constituents which is around 500k inside an island. creating a science-inclined nation is one of my delusions. What about you? What are you plans? I reckon it'd be hard to get a job with a liberal arts degree.
Blood ties. I need to change things from within so I haven't left. I agree with things so I can pursue my agenda. I'm a developmentalist. I think changing the economic and subtle cultural mediums will eventually shift everything to the left. Left and right is relative though. What could be left to you is right to me vice versa.
The prohibition against marijuana has not only been a legal failure, but a cultural one. Entire careers are ruined because of what? Because this regular person likes to get high with his friends on the weekend?
I would expect a rather rough transition (in certain areas) with the legalization. But, after the fact, I think crime would drop, what degree that would be I can't say. I think more people would reach a fuller potential with the law off their back, and "pot dealer" as an obsolete job position, therefore not possible to fall into. I think prison space would increase and need for funding would drop.People will over-do it, for sure, but that is no excuse to punish the whole population.
What would it be like if drinking alcohol was looked at as "casual?" We know from history what happens when the law treats it as if its not. The illegal movement of the drug causes crime other than that initial one, violence erupted, people died, people were generally pissed off because they, decent productive citizens, had to break the law to enjoy a typical adult activity.
So the issue here is whether the "marijuana and the death sentence" issue is important in enough to bend liberty. With that, I agree. It isn't. But I'd like you to address the image of a "pot-smoking population." What would happen if, similar to the tradition of cigarettes, the population treats the intake of marijuana as "casual"?
People are different across cultures. There are "smart" people and there are "dumb" people. The smarter the people, the less the government is necessary. The dumber the people, the more the government is required. The problem is the fact that "Dumber People" usually means "Corrupt Government." I think there has to be enough "freewill" to stop that cycle.
Ah, wait. I remember stating that I was in America, correct? heh. No, I'm not American. I studied in New Jersey for a while but I eventually left.
("regardless of location, I don't think increased power over individuals is necessary.")
Does this apply in all situations? If it is universal, how much power should governments have then?
("State debts are things people actually worry about paying off and make efforts to do so. They do little good. The government would make millions in additional funds which could in turn be used to keep teachers hired, or put towards high speed rail/ road repair.")
A degree relative to society's culture which includes their overall political knowledge and maximization of utility. If everyone's "rational", perhaps there will be lesser emphasis on gov't. Extreme authoritarianism fails because it forgets to consider that men are, partly by nature, egocentric. In addition, having authority environmentally conditions men to be self-centered. I am not supporting the extreme. I am supporting authority in the definition of "gov't." Based on my examination of your people, they cannot think for themselves yet. Then again, which American state is this?
My apologies. And if by "better" you mean "prefer", then yes. That is the case.
"Yeah. How do you plan to do that?..."
I lack information to comment on the specific details of amending the political system to lessen expense on death legalities. I do think its feasible but I'm also thinking it might systemically harm the entire system of your state.
Legalizing marijuana lessens expense made to execute the law? And how does less debt mean more spent on infrastructure? Doesn't your economy rely on debt? And how do you guarantee that your state(gov't) will allocate funds towards infrastructures?
Wouldn't it be more efficient to orientate the political system towards an economically approving speed of execution? The cost of death penalty is only because of legality, correct? And if we reduce the process, death becomes cheaper.
So there is a difference and this specific difference is in agreement with maintaining illegality?
How does legalizing marijuana lower debt? And how does the lowering of debt mean that the state(gov't) will provide more for the people?
I used the word "dumb" based on my own context. I do not know if you use the same "dumb" I use. So to you, dumb means under utilized. To me, it simply means that exact handicap. The majority has a natural preference for under utility, hence, inefficient decision. This is what I mean. This is why I support a degree of authoritarianism.
"Just about all the people who want to smoke pot already do. "
How do you prove this? Won't the average citizen grow more interested in smoking pot when it becomes acceptable?
"The only noticeable change that would come of it is that state and city governments would have more money to dig themselves out of dept and provide for the people."
I'm not getting the picture. The reason why the state does not provide for its people is because of debt? Is this really the case?
"When you consider all the things such as elongated trials, lawyers, and everything else that comes with such a massive potential punishment, life imprisonment is actually cheaper than the death penalty. "
Different personalities have different needs. The "way of studying" is as important as the "topic of study". I guess I don't trust the common school to be a good quality educator, especially for people like me.
Btw, who is Steve Gurenberg? And I suppose Anchorite comes from Anchor wherein I connected Anchor to Dolphins because both are found in the same watery setting?
I don't remember schools much. Do I judge base on teachers, base on how they like their jobs or the quality of their work? I have been to many schools. I never liked being in all of them to be honest.
I do like education, science, math, and all these basic studies, yet when I think of school, it's not the same. I can already see how much further I would've gotten if I actually liked the method of teaching that was used on me. I feel like my potential passion for these subjects were wasted because of a weak instrument. But I guess my passion wasn't enough to overcome the hurdles and mundanity of school affairs. I do hope to help younger generations avoid the same mistake. I've been thinking of looking for children with the right preferences but are too lazy because of the medium used for studying.
I respect people in three ways: Ability, Intention and Humanity.
Similar to yourself, I respect the knowledgeable or the person who is able. But I think I give more leeway than you because I can respect someone who is incapable with good intentions more than a person who's capable but with negative intentions.
But even if the person is incapable and have negative intentions, I can still respect him/her by looking at his humanity.
Basically, I respect everyone or at least try to. I don't like respecting based on superficial things like status or appearance but I think I am still affected by these things.
That depends. Overall, I'm in the middle. I feel pressured by people so I hesitate but I also feel wrecked by irritation of the lack of clarity and myself being pressured. It creates an internal conflict and bam! I feel burdened. It's like valuing things you're not naturally good at. If your not good at basketball and you try anyways, It really stresses you out.
The way I usually deal with orders is by analyzing the efficiency of the action and then analyzing the social implication of following or not following. Whatever I decide, I'm still screwed because I like both.
People are stimulated(fun) by many things. Type can also factor in stimulation. INTP's are stimulated by ideas and critical thinking for example. If we're talking about people who are most stimulated by affecting others in a physical and emotional way, then I'm thinking SeFe, therefore either ISTP or ESTP.
Typology tends to make you crazy and discriminatory. But maybe it's really up to the person. But still, I can't find any flaws in my reasoning. People are born different and will most likely be happy in different ways.
Often, I think that if one is unaware of the reason(such was your case), it's because it happens subconsciously. Most people don't really analyze nor try to know themselves very well. It's actually quite amazing how much unaware we are of what we are.
Whenever I'm given scenarios like this, I often have this intuitive "obligation" to clarify the scenario to the person introducing the scenario. It's pretty strange methinks, but why does a person think of scenarios as problems to understand and solve?
I'd imagine the reason for their actions lies in their definition of "stimulation". Usually, it's always either some kind of value that involves vengeance, jealousy and other emotions, or straighforward direct 'fun'. in this case, I'm assuming the latter.