These past few weeks we’ve made decent headway in stepping further and further toward a pleasant and sustainable society. In part one, we established the purpose of Government, the definitions and responsibilities of individual freedom, the sanctity of privacy, and in part two we’ve established the need for public service, utilities, and taxes. We’re well on our way, I’d say. There are only a few real topics left to go over, but these are the circus fires. Let’s get started, shall we?
Part Three — Personal Responsibility
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has always struck me as an odd entity for controlling three very different categories of controversy. On the one hand, the kinds of investigation and enforcement carried out by the agency could very well be handled by an agency such as the FBI, and the licensing that goes along with it could be relegated to an appropriate licensing body. I suppose it’s fitting that this week’s topics should cover all three issues, and more.
Article VI: Adulthood
Since there are certainly multiple stages to a person’s maturation and development, a person should be considered a minor adult when they reach the age of 16, and a legal adult when they reach the age of 18. Two distinct stages of adulthood allow for a point in time where parental responsibility and control is slightly diminished in light of a young adult’s development, and after that, a period of full responsibility for the young adult. Items that could fall under the heading of being a minor adult could include, but not necessarily be limited to reproductive decisions, vehicular licensing, and employment.
Article VII: Controlled Substances
There should be no law barring the personal use of any substance, save for a minimum legal age of 18 for use and purchase of such substances. These substances can include, but not be limited to alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, Psilocybin mushrooms, and cocaine. Instead, responsible use and discretion should be taught by providing an understanding of the risks of such substances. In order to ensure the safety of the people, appropriate laws and regulations on the manufacturing and sale of such substances would be necessary. Certain safety and quality standards would have to be met, and some substances may (in rare circumstances) actually be banned from sale. Substances that would be banned from sale would be determined by a scientific panel who could advise as to the legitimate recreational benefits of such substances.
The point of regulating the sale of these items and not the majority use is to retain individual freedom, while hopefully preventing profiteering. Minors found to be using such substances would not be jailed, and instead would be entered into an appropriate treatment program. There would be no laws regulating intoxication while operating a vehicle or heavy machinery, or other such situations. Instead, issues that may arise from the use of controlled substances would fall under a broader umbrella of negligence, which would have various degrees based on the severity of the incident.
Article VIII: Weapons and Self-Defense
Because not every person can be an expert in martial arts, it is necessary for the people to have the right to own weapons. In no uncertain terms, the right to own weapons is there for the purposes of sport, hunting, recreation, home and self defense, militia, and revolt against tyranny. A person may own and carry weapons including, but not limited to, blades, swords, blunt objects, firearms, spraying agents, and electronic devices. Ownership and carry permission should be determined based upon a person’s age, mental health, and a background check. Certain items like small blades and pellet rifles may be exempt from checks and licensing, while other items may require specific training and licensing. Some weapons, like certain explosives, could be outright banned from both civilian and Government use. The Government should not have the ability to deny a person ownership of a weapon based upon their political beliefs.
If weapons are outright criminalized, the ability for the citizenry to defend themselves under dire circumstances is greatly diminished. In addition, the Government should never have supreme power over its people.
It’s possible that these topics may require further clarification for complete understanding, but I feel like I’ve gotten the point across and made a good case for each of them.