Quote from Kingofrunes;1155586:
Are you telling me you support the freedom of Drug Lords to openly sell drugs across the world and kill anyone who gets in their way?
No. I stated that I support him for his libertarian ideology.
(I don't feel these next questions are necessary to answer or explain as that answers the question, but I will)
Quote from Kingofrunes;1155586:
you support the freedom of Drug Lords to openly sell drugs across the world?
Yes.
Quote from Kingofrunes;1155586:
you support the freedom of Drug Lords to kill anyone who gets in their way?
No. At least, not in the context with which that question is being posed. It's implying that they're attacking another party, therefore attempting to remove their freedom, because they dislike how business is going or something of that nature. That would cause them to be the aggressors rather than people protecting themselves from other aggressors out to take their lives away. It is very important who is attacking because it's the difference between shooting a visitor in your house who pulls out a gun and threatens you and shooting a visitor in your house because they decided not to root for the same football team. One will allow you to continue your life as a non-harmful individual and the other seeks to disrupt it due to a disagreement on personal choice only affecting willing participants.
Quote from Kingofrunes;1155586:
By supporting this guy you are justifying behavior like that.
Mostly no.
This is a person who ran a website dealing with exchanges. His job was not to be a "drug lord". If he killed people, it was strictly to protect many other individuals from the even greater harm of exposure. If you do not believe something is wrong, and I do see drug consumption as a victimless crime that does not restrict freedom but exercises it, then the ones who seek the end that freedom are taking part in immoral and aggressive acts on a large scale to disrupt those they disagree with through violence and, effectively, slavery. A person who prevents this from occurring is therefore acting in defense in a similar manner to how a police officer would be moral in stopping someone on a shooting spree by gunshot, even if they themselves aren't being shot at.
I would not draw a line where freedom of speech/activity ends at
any point on the internet, but I would end it at "real life". For example, if a person makes a threat to harm someone, it is unconditionally the predecessor to a harmful action, much like pulling your fists back before you punch someone. They might not go hurt them, much like a person pulling their fists back won't
necessarily punch, but it is an action specific enough to only have one interpretation and is therefore worth interrupting as it
will interfere with someone else if it proceeds.
I believe we could come to a far more reasonable and fair moral standard for the world by allowing freedom to extend as far as possible. So far that it only ends where another person's begins. We were already pushing for this model, but somewhere it got screwed up when we began injecting our feelings into the matter of who we're going to enslave and kill a bit too liberally. This is gradually evaporating in front of us, thankfully, so we won't be seeing literal witch burning in America anytime soon. But this idea would shock many people and make them quite uncomfortable. When people "get it", though, they'll understand why it was bad idea much like we now understand it's a bad idea to cut the hands off of thieves even if our immediate impulse makes us want to do that.
Quote from Kingofrunes;1155586:
Eliminate the Homicides and danger associated with drugs and then I would be more willing to support shit like this.
No evil can ever be completely eliminated, but this was a far safer medium than doing it face to face.