Consume Product

The logic is really, really simple.

I'm all for "Free markets" as long as the economic behavior benefits society as a whole. A good way to measure this is whether it's in the interests of the two parties to participate in the transaction.

With addictive drugs, it's definitely not in the interest of the drug users to buy drugs. Do I have to explain this?

Therefore, people selling drugs, trafficking drugs, making drugs that are harmful and not beneficial to its users are doing so knowing that they are hurting their customers.

This is the same as if I harmed someone intentionally. Whether they agree to me harming them or not, I'm still harming them. It's not a net benefit for anyone, let alone society as a whole, to harm them.

Now, in the case of drugs, it's not some simple "oops I lost a few dollars." Drugs ruin lives. It makes it all but impossible for the drug user to ever be a successful parent. The long and the short of it is, whether the drug user ends up dead due to an OD or survives and somehow gains some semblance of life back, the drug user is likely ruined for the rest of his life, incapable of ever really being a very productive member of society.

In short, drugs kill people and maim them and turn them into invalids.

It's as if they were doing this directly to people. Whether the people choose to self-harm or not is irrelevant. Someone is giving them the tools and the materials to do so, and encouraging them to do it.

This is not the behavior of someone who cares about them or society as a whole.

In short, they actually hate us and our society and are actively trying to hurt it. They are killing people with their actions, ruining lives, etc...

Therefore, they are an existential threat that must be dealt with. Violence is justified when protecting life.

In conclusion, it is clear that drug dealers and traffickers can be killed. Whether they get a trial or not depends on the sort of crime they are committing. If they are a US citizen and we have suspicion they might be a drug dealer then maybe we put them on trial and present evidence.

If they are not a US citizen, then they get no trial regardless. If they wage war against us, we wage war against them. If they kill our women and children, we are justified in doing the same. If they wipe communities off the map, then we can do the same. Whether we use drugs to do it or bombs or nuclear weapons or missiles or bullets is irrelevant. We are justified to deal with existential, mortal threats with unlimited violence.

I literally hope and pray that we bomb the shit out of countries that are actively trying to hurt us. I don't care who they are. I don't care if they are white or black. If you wake up in the morning and think of how you can hurt my people and my country, I am justified in killing you.

That's the law of the Jungle. You want to hunt my family, I will eat you.

Libertarians -- go kill yourself and save me the trouble. It is not liberty to choose death.

Literally every second nigger I run into at college or around the city is a flaming faggot. I don't recall niggers being this gay when I was a kid. In fact, the media tried to portray them as tough thugs and gangsters.

Even on HT's streams all the niggers on omegle are fags.

I guess being raised by single mothers and spending half your life in prison takes its toll.

I have some idea on Internet 2.0.

Idea #1: Allow people to isolate entire countries and continents from their network. If a packet originates from, say, India, and it is heading towards, say, my networks, I can just publish "I don't accept anything from India, so don't bother sending me the packets. I'll just drop them." As word spreads, everyone will stop accepting any packet from India that is moving towards my direction. If enough people publish such a rule, then people just stop accepting packets altogether from India.

Idea #2: Have a basic intelligence test that the users must pass in order to use the internet. Test them occasionally throughout the year. If they fail the test, then they are banned from all networking until they can pass again. If they fail too many times, they get a lifetime ban.

Idea #3: People who use the internet to do obviously evil things like CP are just shot on the spot. If you want to post that or share it, and people find out, we just end the threat. Just because you are free to express your ideas does not mean you are free to determine how others will react.

Other ideas you might get shot for: communism, Judaism, banning guns or "Free Speech", etc...

If you think this is unfair, go create your own internet where you can freely share CP and Judaism and communism. Just don't connect to our internet.

Idea #4: No bots. No programs or scripts. Anyone caught using these things is immediately banned. Basically, you can send hand-written packets and that's it. If it's not so important that you're not willing to prove that you're a human, then it's not worth it and you shouldn't do it.

Maybe allow bots and scripts between point-to-point but only after both parties agree to it. Or maybe it's just not worth the risk.

Idea #5: No games, no profit, nothing like that. If you want to play games or make money, do it outside. The internet is only for communicating between intelligent adults. If you want to have your own internet for playing games, go build that somewhere else. If you want to have your own internet for making money, go do that somewhere else.

Idea #6: If you want to contribute something to the foundation of knowledge for the good of the human race, then do that somewhere else. The internet is not a good place for that, and it never will be, because it is ephemeral. Go create an underground data silo or something.