Something a bit more localized

Unless they directly own the water supply, how so?

How so?

Would you mind skipping to the end of this game and disclosing the stacked, bullshit argument you've got on deck?

No answer for that?

And I'm making it up as I go. I'm not reading from a script, like some.

I'm not indulging stupid bullshit about who owns the water or the sky. Fogging you with poison violates your rights.

I'm just selling the poison for people to use on themselves.

If some gets on you, that's not my problem. That's other people using it wrong. Don't look at me like I've done something improper.

Then it's the end user poisoning the water supply and violating peoples' rights. Whatever you're getting at here is falling on it's ass.

You're not "entitled" to a supply of clean water just because you want one, socialist.

1) I pay for clean water, and am owed clean water.

2) What I am "entitled" to has no bearing on the fact that you poisoning/stabbing/shooting/dropping anvils from high places violates my rights.

Who are you paying to get clean water, and what entitles them to sell it?

In terms of legislation, the needs of the many can NEVER trample the rights of the individual. Government is instituted to protect the rights of the people; it can't legitimately exercise any power that requires it to suppress those rights.

If you believe that should NOT be the case, I'm just advising you that will also be true for those whose social goals you are in vehement disagreement with.

"Original ownership" is an argument for douchebag college freshmen levitating on the mind-shattering cloud of enlightenment of Sociology 101.

Try something more creative next time you don't have an answer. And by the way, I wasn't headed where you seem to think I was headed. So I'll try again, but break it in to smaller pieces. Who sells you the water?

The local utilities district, licenced by the state tasked with infrastructure management. Every entity involved is either funded by my taxes or direct usage fees. This affords me the contractual right to clean water, as opposed to what ever ignorant, bullshit distortion of inherent rights you might be about to congratulate yourself for attempting.

You really need to just stop jumping to conclusions here. Okay, so the state is in charge of water. Would you say then, that water is a public resource?

So why are you banning private citizens from being able to buy anthrax at the 7-Eleven?

I'd argue that there is no right to own anthrax, so, no, buying it at a convenience store is out.

However, if one had a legitimate need to own anthrax and were prepared to meet the regulatory requirements for possessing it (insurance, proper isolation and storage, qualified handling, etc.), sure, they could acquire/manufacture it.

Why the regulatory requirements? Why should somebody be coerced in to having insurance just to buy anthrax?

Who decides what a "legitimate need" is?

Actually, Scorp, Volpone, and Kraunes have and they are exactly who I was calling out.

Because of the extreme and immediate risk it poses to other individuals merely by its existence. You'll find I hold similar views about plutonium, VX gas, etc.

I don't claim that there is a right to own weapons of mass destruction, after all.

Ultimately, the people, through law as executed by the appropriate regulatory body.

"Into the pot with you, Mbutu. It's for the good of The People."
-Storm.

So, to reiterate, you favor government mandated insurance to cover negligent behavior. I suppose you don't see the inconsistency with some of your other views.

Okay I stopped at page two. Just let me say in my experience if the natives don't get alcohol they will turn to paint cans, cans of air, and other unsavory things. In the long run isn't alcohol the easiest on their bodies and minds? If we try to outlaw alcohol we have to outlaw all the other things they use when alcohol is no longer an option.

And how do we distinguish who gets outlawed 1/16 Indian here is your patch no alcohol/can of air for you.

If anybody here was actually saying it should be illegal to sell booze to Indians your questions would be valid.

Back on page two it was going on. But it was ridiculously stupid so I stopped reading. My attention span is small these days.

How about date rape drugs formulated to look and taste like gummi bears or Pepsi?

It's for personal use, I swear.

UPDATE: Pine Ridge Reservation ends alcohol ban.

With the wave of a wand, tribe members who return to the reservation with a trunk full of legally-purchased, legal product have gone from "bootleggers" to "law-abiding citizens."

Will it stop the Tribal Leaders from blaming everyone but themselves for problems with alcoholism and alcohol-related criminal activity? I doubt it. But it's a step in the right direction. The prospect of new tax money being used to build them bigger [-]drunk tanks[/-] "detox centers," for example.

OH YEAH, let's get drunk Indian style!

Where did I say that?

I said that there was no right to own anthrax, but, if you wanted to and had some legitimate reason for doing so, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to, provided you could comply with regulator requirements for doing so.

No, I don't. It may be that you have a hard time regarding anything other than absolutism as consistent.

My standard for state involvement in one's personal affairs is very high. It isn't enough that the state wants to do it, or that it might be a good idea to do it. The state must have a COMPELLING reason connected to the rights of others to do it.

The state's ability to intervene in your personal matters should be directly proportional to the real and immediate risk your behavior has for the rights of others.

The state really shouldn't be able to tell me I can't drink alcoholic beverages. If I'm hurting anyone directly, it's only myself and that should be my prerogative. The state can only intervene when my drinking threatens the rights of others. They can forbid me from operating a car on a public road when I've been drinking, for instance. Or, if I descend into alcoholism and neglect my children, the state can take them away. But they can't prevent me from engaging in the activity merely based on the harm I could do, because the harm is too small and indirect.

Owning anthrax is another matter. Just by its very existence, anthrax is a threat to public health. Carelessness or incompetence in handling it could lead to the deaths or severe illnesses of hundreds or thousands of people. The state therefore is entitled to make sure that, if I own it, I do so in a manner that adequately protects the rights of others.