if saving them means i’ll kill them, i’ve done nothing at all.

even though, the state wouldnt do that against you

unless youre being violent

sometimes it’s important to use a smaller violation of rights to prevent a much greater one.

unless you live in like, North Korea

so you believe in greater good

the example i like is from David D. Friedman

so why oppose me and alcohol man

his alcoholism will surely lead to his demise

because alcohol man’s life isn’t imminently threatened.

temporarily destroying his alcohol won’t solve his problem

yet you seem to agree with getting rid of things before they become threats

not really, no.

you shouldn’t do something unless it’s imminent.

so you wait before they start affecting you

or someone else, yes.

the alcoholism is affecting him

hence defense of myself and **others**

the suicide will affect him

if it isn’t going to kill him, there are ways to go about it that don’t involve violence.

if it kills him tomorrow, you could argue that it’s justified.

so you wait until the alcoholism starts becoming serious...?

wait until it’s an immediate threat to his life.

thats retarded

if it’s *going* to kill him, you can intervene with force.

And I know you will start saying "but its your son you have custody"

And for how long will you intervene?

but if my son starts smoking weed, I will do everything I can to stop it

that’s up to punished

Intervene until he is in no immediate threat or until he is completely out of alcohol's grasp?

im not going to sit there and wait till his lungs resemble coal

you have a responsibility to protect your children from harm, you are not obligated to do so with your friends.

Weed doesn't work like that.

tobacco does, though.

Tobacco does, yes.

then Tobacco

libtards wanna kill guns when tobacco kills waaay more 😤

The only reason tobacco is legal is because of Big Tobaccy. I'd ban it before weed.

but according to water, if we remove the parental responsibilty, he will view me tyring to stop my son as

bad

id ban all drugs