Assault Against Libertarians
jackyObot
to 'reply' to one of your messages I get a nntp error.
Ultimately, my main problem with Libertarians is the idea that, at one
stroke, they will try and re-make what 5000 years of social evolution
has brought us. Imperfect as our society is today, it is, as I have
previously stated, the evolutionary offspring of the human experiment at
community that began thousands of years ago. In fits and starts, it has
tried absolute monarchy/dictatorships, city/states, feudal regimes, etc
etc etc. All have fallen or proven folly to one degree or another, save
the current model of Western Democracy. Sure, there are lots of things
about Government to hate. Lower taxes? I am all for it. Legalize ALL
drugs, I say do it. Privatize most government functions, yep, I am all
for it. But the difference between myself and Libertarian is the DEGREE
to which I believe these should be taken. I strongly believe that a
cenrtal administrative agency in some form or another is absolutely
necessary for the continued advancement of humankind. The broad stroke
elimination of these evolved social fabrics and checks/balances is what
makes the Libertarian ideal an unworkable and ultimately dangerous one.
Courageous
> stroke, they will try and re-make what 5000 years of social evolution
> has brought us. Imperfect as our society is today, it is, as I have
> previously stated, the evolutionary offspring of the human experiment at
> community that began thousands of years ago. In fits and starts, it has
> tried absolute monarchy/dictatorships, city/states, feudal regimes, etc
> etc etc. All have fallen or proven folly to one degree or another, save
> the current model of Western Democracy. Sure, there are lots of things
> about Government to hate. Lower taxes? I am all for it. Legalize ALL
> drugs, I say do it. Privatize most government functions, yep, I am all
> for it. But the difference between myself and Libertarian is the DEGREE
> to which I believe these should be taken.
If you wish, call yourself a "classical liberal". Endorsing
ideals which are libertarian in nature does not make you
an anarchist, no matter what you think. Check out the
CATO INSTITUTE http://www.cato.org for libertarianism as
presented by a intelligent, even-tempered, well-studied
group of individuals in a largely non-partisan role.
In threads where I have talked about the non-agression
principle, coercion, and the like (most of these threads
are on talk.poltics.libertarian, not in c.s.i.p.g.r),
I only talk about that as the epistemlogical basis for
my beliefs. In fact, I find it alarming that your average
person has no epistemological basis for their beliefs
on what government should or should not do. Some things
are WRONG, whether or not 95% of everyone calls it right.
Slavery was WRONG. Murder is WRONG. I'll escape this
by fiat and simply state that some things are self-
evident (even though it aint that easy, let's just
enter it into our debate as an assumption and call it
a wrap). Anyway, "majority rule" or "we voted for it"
is not and never will be a sound epistemlogical basis
for legislation in my opinion. But then... if it isn't,
what is?
For me, the Non Aggression Principle and a strong belief
in Natural Rights is my epistemological basis. It is
my moral center, what drives my decision on whether a
law is right or wrong, and whether an action conducted
against another human being is acceptible or not [and
no, it is not perfect, but it IS good].
You may not believe in the NAP or Natural Rights. And
if you don't, so be it. But then, that quite aptly leads
me to the following question:
WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IN?????
C/
Damocles
<JJ...@TennetNOSPAMMERS.COM> wrote:
>Forgive me for starting a new thread, Courageous : But every time I try
>to 'reply' to one of your messages I get a nntp error.
>
>
>Ultimately, my main problem with Libertarians is the idea that, at one
>stroke, they will try and re-make what 5000 years of social evolution
>has brought us. Imperfect as our society is today, it is, as I have
>previously stated, the evolutionary offspring of the human experiment at
>community that began thousands of years ago. In fits and starts, it has
>tried absolute monarchy/dictatorships, city/states, feudal regimes, etc
>etc etc. All have fallen or proven folly to one degree or another, save
>the current model of Western Democracy.
Um, no offense, but the whole idea of "social evolution" is a crock.
Western democracy as it is today owes its existence to very specific
historical circumstances. If the Stuart family of England had been
smart enough to convert to Anglicanism, or if Alexander Hamilton had
ever become President of the United States, we'd have very different
systems in place today. And those are just the obvious
examples...there are countless other factors that fell into place
leading up to where we are today.
Fukuyama was full of shit. History is not over...there's nothing
written in stone saying that this is how it should be and nothing can
ever be better.
Alan
newsgroup. But, this really pissed me off big time.
>Ultimately, my main problem with Libertarians is the idea that, at one
>stroke, they will try and re-make what 5000 years of social evolution
>has brought us. Imperfect as our society is today, it is, as I have
>previously stated, the evolutionary offspring of the human experiment at
>community that began thousands of years ago. In fits and starts, it has
>tried absolute monarchy/dictatorships, city/states, feudal regimes, etc
>etc etc. All have fallen or proven folly to one degree or another, save
>the current model of Western Democracy.
The above statement is the apitomy of ignorance and stupidity. People
haven't changed at all in thousands of years. They are just as lazy, greedy,
perverted, corrupt, and stupid today as they were then. The only thing that
has changed is the technology around us. Nothing else has. So, don't be
dribbling some anthropological nonsense in an attempt to discredit
Libertarian ideals.
One other thing. Democracy has proven as a folly and the founding fathers
wrote about it on numerous occasions. That's why they guaranteed us a
Republican form of government in article 4 section 4 of the US Constitution.
You will not find the word "democracy" in the Constitution, Declaration of
Independance, or any other founding documents. A Republican form of
governemt has nothing to do with the Republican party (which is just as bad
as the Democratic party). It means we live in a Republic, not a Democracy.
No, I'm not going to give you a civics lesson on the differences. It's your
responsiblity to research it and find out on your own.
>I strongly believe that a
>central administrative agency in some form or another is absolutely
>necessary for the continued advancement of humankind. The broad stroke
>elimination of these evolved social fabrics and checks/balances is what
>makes the Libertarian ideal an unworkable and ultimately dangerous one.
Jeezus man. Don't you know that centralization of government takes control
away from the people and concentrates it in the hands of a few? What you're
saying here is that you want to be CONTROLLED. Because, it makes you feel
safe and secure to know that some bureaucratic monstrosity (the government)
is monitoring and controlling every aspect of your life. You are so afraid
of having to make your own decisions and fend for yourself that you, and
millions of other people, glady just hand over their rights so the
government can take care of you. To me, that is nothing short of a spit in
the face to all the men and women who died fighting the British tyranny two
centuries ago so we could have a free society. It is exactly people with
your mental process that the phrase "the masses are asses" came about. Do a
little research, read a little history, and don't be such a damn fool.
Thomas Jefferson:
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those willing
to work and give to those who would not. I have never heard, or heard of, a
single expression or opinion which did not condemn it as an inexcusable
aggression."
Samuel Adams:
"Remeber, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and
murders itself! There was never a democracy which did not commit suicide."
James Madison:
"...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulance and contention;
have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of
property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been
violent in their deaths."
Thomas Paine:
"Democracy is the vilest form of government there is!"
At the conclusion of the Consitution Convention in September, 1787, Benjamin
Franklin was asked, "What have you wrought?" He answered, "A Republic, if
you can keep it."
jackyObot
>
>
> If you wish, call yourself a "classical liberal". Endorsing
> ideals which are libertarian in nature does not make you
> an anarchist, no matter what you think. Check out the
> CATO INSTITUTE http://www.cato.org for libertarianism as
> presented by a intelligent, even-tempered, well-studied
> group of individuals in a largely non-partisan role.
>
I shall read up on this sometime soon, and will try it with an open
mind.
I am not at issue with you re: the fact that the elevation of individual
rights is a worthy cause to believe it; it is the IMPLEMENTATION of such
rights, and the slashing of government, that I think is folly.
What do I beleive in, i.e - what would I *LIKE* to see? Well, how about
a government whose PRIME function is the administration of necessary
social and administrative functions <military, police, roads, national
affairs, courts, taxation <at a smaller rate> and several others> that
leaves MOST of the decisions in the individuals hands. Let's say,
anything that has NO ADVERSE impact upon other people or the environment
should be left to the individual <such as drug usage, school attendance,
etc etc etc etc>. But do I think the tenet 'shoot when your property is
threatened' is a good thing? Nope. Ditch all government? Nope. Leave
decisions about morality up to the community? maybe. But to the
individual? To a point. But I refer you to my example of my neighbor
with the mural of pedonecrophilia. You said 'it was a difficult issue.'
To me, that doesn't cut it. There should be lines that can't be crossed.
jackyObot
<snip a bunch of shit>
Well, if you had been following this thread, you will have noted that I
had already stated previously that the Western Democracy/Republic/ call
it what you will.
So take your insults and pester someone else. If you don't want to
partake in civilized discussion, I can't be bothered.
jackyObot
>
> On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 16:31:19 -0500, jackyObot
> <JJ...@TennetNOSPAMMERS.COM> wrote:
>
> >Forgive me for starting a new thread, Courageous : But every time I try
> >to 'reply' to one of your messages I get a nntp error.
> >
> >
> >stroke, they will try and re-make what 5000 years of social evolution
> >has brought us. Imperfect as our society is today, it is, as I have
> >previously stated, the evolutionary offspring of the human experiment at
> >community that began thousands of years ago. In fits and starts, it has
> >tried absolute monarchy/dictatorships, city/states, feudal regimes, etc
> >etc etc. All have fallen or proven folly to one degree or another, save
> >the current model of Western Democracy.
>
> Western democracy as it is today owes its existence to very specific
> historical circumstances. If the Stuart family of England had been
> smart enough to convert to Anglicanism, or if Alexander Hamilton had
> ever become President of the United States, we'd have very different
> systems in place today. And those are just the obvious
> examples...there are countless other factors that fell into place
> leading up to where we are today.
>
> Fukuyama was full of shit. History is not over...there's nothing
> written in stone saying that this is how it should be and nothing can
> ever be better.
Whoever said it couldn't? But I say it will continue to evolve, and
let's let the 'free market of human interaction,' so to speak, determine
it's evolution. Let's not tear down the old order with a new, untested
one that, in my view, will lead to way too much stratification.
Communties become little isolated clusters and devolve into armed camps.
People's ideas of right and wrong will too often clash. etc etc
shen...@my-dejanews.com
JJ...@TennetNOSPAMMERS.COM wrote:
> Courageous wrote:
> >
> >
> > If you wish, call yourself a "classical liberal". Endorsing
> > ideals which are libertarian in nature does not make you
> > an anarchist, no matter what you think. Check out the
> > CATO INSTITUTE http://www.cato.org for libertarianism as
> > presented by a intelligent, even-tempered, well-studied
> > group of individuals in a largely non-partisan role.
> >
>
> I shall read up on this sometime soon, and will try it with an open
> mind.
>
This is very nice to see, somebody that has made an opinion, but is willing
to listen to others with an open mind and maybe if it rings true might change
thier view point. You have given me some more faith that debate on the usenet
can bring about some change.
>
> I am not at issue with you re: the fact that the elevation of individual
> rights is a worthy cause to believe it; it is the IMPLEMENTATION of such
> rights, and the slashing of government, that I think is folly.
>
> What do I beleive in, i.e - what would I *LIKE* to see? Well, how about
> a government whose PRIME function is the administration of necessary
> social and administrative functions <military, police, roads, national
> affairs, courts, taxation <at a smaller rate> and several others> that
> leaves MOST of the decisions in the individuals hands. Let's say,
> anything that has NO ADVERSE impact upon other people or the environment
> should be left to the individual <such as drug usage, school attendance,
> etc etc etc etc>. But do I think the tenet 'shoot when your property is
> threatened' is a good thing? Nope. Ditch all government? Nope. Leave
> decisions about morality up to the community? maybe. But to the
> individual? To a point. But I refer you to my example of my neighbor
> with the mural of pedonecrophilia. You said 'it was a difficult issue.'
> To me, that doesn't cut it. There should be lines that can't be crossed.
>
From the looks of it your basic ideas are the same as mine. I also think
that our current government is working pretty ok. We seem to have plenty of
personal freedoms still, and I dont think that a complete tear down of what
has been created would be a major benifit. I think we need to remember to
guard and value our freedoms and be constantly vigilant so nobody will try to
take em away. I do feel we have injust things going on like ... War on
Drugs, Social Security, and Welfare, but I also hope we will be able to solve
the problems we have without a revolution.
About the "shoot when your property is threatened": In a libertarian
government I think there would still be nasty lawyers, so even if its not
against law to shoot somebody in the spine for stealing your hubcaps I bet you
would have to pay for the thiefs long term care since the government sure
wont! Look at OJ didnt he loose the wrongfull death lawsuit?
Shane
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Alan
>had already stated previously that the Western Democracy/Republic/ call
>it what you will.
I read this entire thread and you made no mention of a Republic anywhere.
You obviously didn't read MY post because I stated that a Republic and
Democracy are two different forms of government and yet you use them
together in the same phrase as though they are the same thing. That's what
happens when you learn about our form of government from Dan Rather.
>So take your insults and pester someone else. If you don't want to
>partake in civilized discussion, I can't be bothered.
You don't want to be bothered with the truth, is what you're really trying
to say.
Dan Bongard
: Whoever said it couldn't? But I say it will continue to evolve, and
: let's let the 'free market of human interaction,' so to speak, determine
: it's evolution. Let's not tear down the old order with a new, untested
: one
Such as the replacement of a peudo-feudal empire/colony relationship
with a republic during the American revolution, for example? And
that's one of the less drastic government changes in history, actually.
A free market is just that: a free market. You can't propose "a
free market, as long as nothing too different is available".
Furthermore it must be noted that you are _still_ misusing the term
"evolution" by applying it to human society and government. Human
society has not "evolved" and is not "evolving".
-- Dan
Courageous
> > > ideals which are libertarian in nature does not make you
> > > an anarchist, no matter what you think. Check out the
> > > CATO INSTITUTE http://www.cato.org for libertarianism as
> > > presented by a intelligent, even-tempered, well-studied
> > > group of individuals in a largely non-partisan role.
> > I shall read up on this sometime soon, and will try it with an open
> > mind.
> This is very nice to see, somebody that has made an opinion, but is willing
> to listen to others with an open mind and maybe if it rings true might change
> thier view point. You have given me some more faith that debate on the usenet
> can bring about some change.
Given the extremists that the L.P. attracts, as well as one's
natural tendenancy to be repulsed by some libertarian discussions
when such discussions lack context, it is easy to get odd
ideas about libertarian philosophy.
I can understand how someone might freak out when you accuse
them of murder by proxy by way of their voting "yes" on the
drug war, even though that's exactly how I view it: if you
support the drug war, you are a murderer and a criminal.
This is a strong statement, outside of the way that people
usually look at things, and therefore is going to shock some
people. But people SHOULD be shocked every once in a while.
In personal face-to-face conversations I really enjoy watching
people squirm when it comes to debates on this subject. I
often enjoy asking the following question: "From where do you
draw the right to use force and prevent another human being
from using a mind altering substance in the privacy of their
own home?"
I enjoy asking that question, because that instant in that
persons life may very well be the first moment they realize
that they indeed do NOT have the right to do that particular
thing.
Or so I believe.
C/
William Pitcher
> Western democracy as it is today owes its existence to very specific
> historical circumstances. If the Stuart family of England had been
> smart enough to convert to Anglicanism, or if Alexander Hamilton had
> ever become President of the United States, we'd have very different
> systems in place today. And those are just the obvious
> examples...there are countless other factors that fell into place
> leading up to where we are today.
>
> Fukuyama was full of shit. History is not over...there's nothing
> written in stone saying that this is how it should be and nothing can
> ever be better.
That's not what evolution is all about anyway - things don't always get
"better" when they evolve, they sometimes just get different - don't think of
the idea of social evolution as a continuing evolution of one species - where
the next is better than the previous and the previous dies out, but rather
think of it like the lizards into birds type of a deal - the two are
extremely different, but one isn't "better" than the other. Monarchy
worked, in it's own way, for the time that it lasted. We might think it
would suck in today's western world, but the folks back then more than likely
had little to complain about (except taxes...hmmm, seem familiar? : ) ).
Tribal societies around the world are dying out, but our way of life isn't
better than theirs, just different. In short, I think it's more of a case of
the different societies growing away from each other rather than out of one
another. I mean, how does a democracy evolve out of a dictatorship? Does
violent upheaval count as evolution? Isn't that like Catastrophism in an
anthropological sense?
This is all assuming you believe in that evolution crap anyway. : )
Roark
says...
>
> That's not what evolution is all about anyway - things don't always get
> "better" when they evolve, they sometimes just get different - don't think of
> the idea of social evolution as a continuing evolution of one species - where
> the next is better than the previous and the previous dies out, but rather
> think of it like the lizards into birds type of a deal - the two are
> extremely different, but one isn't "better" than the other.
This is a self-defeating argument. Many people seem to think evolution
miraculously stopped a couple million years ago to be replaced
by a politically correct, morally defensible system of socio-economic
equality.
Not so. Evolution is a response to demands made by the environment while
extinction is the failure to meet those demands. The dinosaurs died
because they were big, stupid feeding machines who couldn't adapt to a
sudden change in the ecosystem. Neanderthal died because he lacked the
cleverness to compete for territory and resources with the better
organized and more technologically accomplished Cro-Magnons. There's no
morality about it either way. People today continue to develop tools,
weapons and technology to make their their environment easier to deal
with (although nukes have seemingly made further weapons development
superfluous).
> Monarchy
> worked, in it's own way, for the time that it lasted. We might think it
> would suck in today's western world, but the folks back then more than likely
> had little to complain about (except taxes...hmmm, seem familiar? : ) ).
> Tribal societies around the world are dying out, but our way of life isn't
> better than theirs, just different.
Our society is "better" in the sense that it is more adaptable to changes
in the environment whereas tribal societies are almost completely
dependent on a stable ecosystem in the area in which they live. In the US
the government should butt out of Native Americans' affairs and let them
live in the way they choose, but you have to be blind not to see the
advantages of scientific accomplishment.
Mark Asher
snip
>In personal face-to-face conversations I really enjoy watching
>people squirm when it comes to debates on this subject. I
>often enjoy asking the following question: "From where do you
>draw the right to use force and prevent another human being
>from using a mind altering substance in the privacy of their
>own home?"
While I support decriminalization of drugs, your question is an easy one to
answer: We live not alone but in a complex society, and the rights of
society to certain things often supersedes the rights of individuals. Living
in a drug-free society is certainly a right that society can work towards at
the detriment of individual rights. (Personally, I think the war on drugs is
a waste of money and effort.)
>I enjoy asking that question, because that instant in that
>persons life may very well be the first moment they realize
>that they indeed do NOT have the right to do that particular
>thing.
Instead ask them if the rights of the individual should be balanced with the
rights of the group. Ask them if they will feel their rights are being
violated if crack houses begin appearing on their street and they have no
legal recourse to do anything about it.
Mark Asher
ald...@hotmail.com
ro...@nospam.com (Roark) wrote:
>
> Not so. Evolution is a response to demands made by the environment while
> extinction is the failure to meet those demands. The dinosaurs died
> because they were big, stupid feeding machines who couldn't adapt to a
> sudden change in the ecosystem. Neanderthal died because he lacked the
> cleverness to compete for territory and resources with the better
> organized and more technologically accomplished Cro-Magnons.
You are talking about "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest."
William's definition of evolution is correct in that it is a gradual change
of characteristics over successive generations "usually" into a more complex
form, but not necessarily better. Genes are passed from one generation to
another undisturbed except for occasional variations not always attributed to
environmental influence. Most of the time the variation is discarded unless
there is a benefit to the species. Adaptibility is an afterthought in the
evolutionary process. A species that dies off because of environmental stress
doesn't have anything to do with evolution, its complexity or its
adaptibility. Roaches are far more likely to survive a global catastrophe
than us.
Courageous
> > extinction is the failure to meet those demands.
> You are talking about "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest."
> William's definition of evolution is correct in that it is a gradual change
> of characteristics over successive generations "usually" into a more complex
> form, but not necessarily better. Genes are passed from one generation to
> another undisturbed except for occasional variations not always attributed to
> environmental influence. Most of the time the variation is discarded unless
> there is a benefit to the species. Adaptibility is an afterthought in the
> evolutionary process. A species that dies off because of environmental stress
> doesn't have anything to do with evolution, its complexity or its
> adaptibility. Roaches are far more likely to survive a global catastrophe
> than us.
This isn't so much an argument against adaptability as a genetic
trait, but rather an observation that global catostrophes, climactic
changes, and the like perhaps don't occur often enough to be
selected for in the first place.
C/
Peter Seebach
Roark <ro...@nospam.com> wrote:
>weapons and technology to make their their environment easier to deal
>with (although nukes have seemingly made further weapons development
>superfluous).
Nonsense! Nukes have made it clear that weapons development needs to find
other paths.
-s
--
Copyright 1998, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Send me money - get cool programs and hardware! No commuting, please.
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
Peter Seebach
>While I support decriminalization of drugs, your question is an easy one to
>answer: We live not alone but in a complex society, and the rights of
>society to certain things often supersedes the rights of individuals. Living
>in a drug-free society is certainly a right that society can work towards at
>the detriment of individual rights. (Personally, I think the war on drugs is
>a waste of money and effort.)
Living in a "drug-free" society is not a "right". Living in a society free
of the *external harmful effects* of drug use is something people have a
legitimate reason to pursue.
Essentially, if you can only tell by going out of your way to find out, it's
not really affecting you, and it's none of your business.
>Instead ask them if the rights of the individual should be balanced with the
>rights of the group. Ask them if they will feel their rights are being
>violated if crack houses begin appearing on their street and they have no
>legal recourse to do anything about it.
Crack houses are a result of the war on drugs, not a direct result of drugs.
Courageous
> other paths.
Nukes make it perfectly clear why one nation should not assault
the sovereign status of another nation. To the extent they are
good for that purpose, they are one of the best inventions mankind
has ever come up with. I'm personally GLAD that secure nations
have nuclear weapons. It makes them that much more secure. I
rhetorically ask: since the invention of nuclear weapons has any
nation ever attempted to invade a nation possessing said weapons?
Answer: a resounding "no".
Admittedly, 50 years isn't exactly an epoch of established
tradition and lore, but I nevertheless assert the validity
of the following claim: NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE A STABILIZING ELEMENT.
Be thankful we have them. Truly.
There are, of course, other issues, such as nuclear terrorism
and the like that are of concern, at least theoretically (although
you would have to be a pretty crazy terrorist to nuke a U.S. city;
given the probable outrage that would erupt from Americans at such
an affront, I suspect that the source country would likely be
utterly eradicated).
In closing, I offer the following whimsical adjustment to the
Culpepper Minuteman slogan:
"Give me Liberty, or give me Gamma Rays!"
:-)
C/
Alan
>answer: We live not alone but in a complex society, and the rights of
>society to certain things often supersedes the rights of individuals.
Living
>in a drug-free society is certainly a right that society can work towards
at
>the detriment of individual rights.
Society, as a whole does not have rights. Only individuals have rights.
Nobody has any authority whatsoever to arbitrarily decide which individual
rights we can set aside because they inconveniently interfere with law
enforcement's ability to carry out their duty. The instant you set aside an
individual right for the "good of the whole" you immediately condemn us all
to the same fate as those living under communism or fascism.
>Instead ask them if the rights of the individual should be balanced with
the
>rights of the group. Ask them if they will feel their rights are being
>violated if crack houses begin appearing on their street and they have no
>legal recourse to do anything about it.
There is no such thing as "group rights". That is something you made up. The
group does no decide what rights the individual is allowed to have. The US
Constitution specifically protects certain individual rights so that groups
cannot tyrannize individuals.
Mark Asher
>>While I support decriminalization of drugs, your question is an easy one
to
>>answer: We live not alone but in a complex society, and the rights of
>>society to certain things often supersedes the rights of individuals.
>Living
>>in a drug-free society is certainly a right that society can work towards
>at
>>the detriment of individual rights.
>
>Society, as a whole does not have rights. Only individuals have rights.
>Nobody has any authority whatsoever to arbitrarily decide which individual
>rights we can set aside because they inconveniently interfere with law
>enforcement's ability to carry out their duty. The instant you set aside an
>individual right for the "good of the whole" you immediately condemn us all
>to the same fate as those living under communism or fascism.
It's extremely naive to think that individual rights are always more
important than group rights when we live in an organized society. It's
always a question of balancing the two. Societies have a right to regulate
the behavior of their members for the betterment of the common good.
Obviously, some pretty rigid checks have to be in place to secure important
individual rights, but by the same token, individuals have to cede some
rights to further the betterment of the group.
>>Instead ask them if the rights of the individual should be balanced with
>the
>>rights of the group. Ask them if they will feel their rights are being
>>violated if crack houses begin appearing on their street and they have no
>>legal recourse to do anything about it.
>
>There is no such thing as "group rights". That is something you made up.
The
>group does no decide what rights the individual is allowed to have. The US
>Constitution specifically protects certain individual rights so that groups
>cannot tyrannize individuals.
I never claimed "group rights" were something in the Constitution. I was
using it to describe the neccessity of balancing the needs of the many
against the wishes of the individual. It's a concept, not a law.
Mark Asher
Mark Asher
to
>>answer: We live not alone but in a complex society, and the rights of
>>society to certain things often supersedes the rights of individuals.
Living
>>in a drug-free society is certainly a right that society can work towards
at
is
>>a waste of money and effort.)
>
>Living in a "drug-free" society is not a "right". Living in a society free
>of the *external harmful effects* of drug use is something people have a
>legitimate reason to pursue.
Society has a right to pursue the ideal of being drug-free, should its
members decide that is important.
The problem with drug use and a lot of other "freedoms" is that there is no
way for society to determine who can use this freedom responsibly and who
cannot, so a blanket condemnation is often the only practical avenue to
pursue.
>Essentially, if you can only tell by going out of your way to find out,
it's
>not really affecting you, and it's none of your business.
Why should I have to wait until it affects me? By that time, it may have a
major detrimental affect on me, as in a crackhead crashing his car into me,
or robbing me, etc. It's a risk. Society has to judge whether the risk of
abuse is worth preserving the individual freedom.
>>Instead ask them if the rights of the individual should be balanced with
the
>>rights of the group. Ask them if they will feel their rights are being
>>violated if crack houses begin appearing on their street and they have no
>>legal recourse to do anything about it.
>
>Crack houses are a result of the war on drugs, not a direct result of
drugs.
Hey, it's my freedom to be able to sell drugs out of my house, right? How
dare you infringe upon that, even though you're my neighbor. Those people
who stumble out of my house and piss on your roses, well, that's them, not
me. I'm not responsbile for them. You talk to them about it. Don't mind
their guns -- they are just exercising their right to protect themselves.
Mark Asher
Courageous
> >Nobody has any authority whatsoever to arbitrarily decide which individual
> >rights we can set aside because they inconveniently interfere with law
> >enforcement's ability to carry out their duty. The instant you set aside an
> >individual right for the "good of the whole" you immediately condemn us all
> >to the same fate as those living under communism or fascism.
> It's extremely naive to think that individual rights are always more
> important than group rights when we live in an organized society.
There is no right of the group, because groups do not concretely
exist in the physical universe... only individual human beings do.
Now, those individual human beings do have rights, and furthermore
the majority of those very same individuals, when arbitrarily
collected, might believe in a certain way. A concrete example of
this might be something like 60% of the individuals in Germany
supporting the persecution of the Jews during and leading up to
the Second World War.
I contend that the will of the majority is a poor measuring stick
for right and wrong. I contend that the "group right" (sic) of the
german people to be "free from the disgusting presence of living
dirty jews" is a right that exists under your moral epistemology as
you have presented it so far.
I realize that you very likely don't actually believe this. And if
I am correct, and you don't believe this, I have one last assertion:
your moral/ethical epistemology as you have presented it is internally
inconsistent.
It is now time for you to retract, restate, or clarify.
> I never claimed "group rights" were something in the Constitution. I was
> using it to describe the neccessity of balancing the needs of the many
> against the wishes of the individual.
On a remote imaginary island, there is a village of 100 villagers.
A volcano on this island is rumbling and is apparently going to erupt.
The local villagers decide to placate the volcano goddess and by
a vote of 99-1 decide to sacrifice oneo of the village virgins to
the volcano goddess.
Is this act "murder" or merely "balancing the needs of the many
against the wishes of the individual"?
Enquiring minds wanna know.
:)
C/
Courageous
> >of the *external harmful effects* of drug use is something people have a
> >legitimate reason to pursue.
>
> Society has a right to pursue the ideal of being drug-free, should its
> members decide that is important.
What is the basis of this belief? That, if a majority of the
people decide something is moral/ethical, therefore it is?
Wouldn't that have made the persecution of the Jews in Nazi
Germany by definition therefore a moral act?
I disagree. However, it is an opinion to which you are entitled.
But for me to accept that you really believe that, you must
state the following:
"The persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany was moral."
The one problem with refuting the above statement is that
it will show your epistemology to be internally inconsistent.
You will then have to retract, restate, or clarify your
position.
C/
Mark Asher
>> >Living in a "drug-free" society is not a "right". Living in a society
free
>> >of the *external harmful effects* of drug use is something people have a
>> >legitimate reason to pursue.
>>
>> Society has a right to pursue the ideal of being drug-free, should its
>> members decide that is important.
>
>What is the basis of this belief? That, if a majority of the
>people decide something is moral/ethical, therefore it is?
>Wouldn't that have made the persecution of the Jews in Nazi
>Germany by definition therefore a moral act?
In effect, if the majority of people decide something, it usually becomes
law in most societies. What is your point? Did the Nazis have a right to
exterminate Jews? I think in light of the world community's response, the
answer is no.
The "Nazis were a government therefore all governments are evil" argument is
silly, just as is the argument that since the Nazis wrongly impinged upon
personal freedoms therefore any government that impinges upon personal
freedoms is wrong.
When you accept the benefits of society, you also accept some loss of
personal freedom.
>I disagree. However, it is an opinion to which you are entitled.
>But for me to accept that you really believe that, you must
>state the following:
>
>"The persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany was moral."
Who determines morality? Usually, the people in power.
Anyway, I suspect that had most Germans really known what was going and been
given a chance to vote, they would have voted against genocide. Here in the
US we send Asian-Americans to camps. We went part of the way down the path
that the Nazis followed.
>The one problem with refuting the above statement is that
>it will show your epistemology to be internally inconsistent.
>You will then have to retract, restate, or clarify your
>position.
Societies cannot function without rules; human nature is such that we need
rules when we live together. Rules impinge upon our freedom. There's just no
getting around it. It's a tradeoff.
Mark Asher
Peter Seebach
>Society has a right to pursue the ideal of being drug-free, should its
>members decide that is important.
I don't agree. I don't believe society has the right to pursue the "ideal"
of being free of people who have sex for pleasure, or the right to pursue
the "ideal" of being free of black people with an education. Individual
rights are important too.
>The problem with drug use and a lot of other "freedoms" is that there is no
>way for society to determine who can use this freedom responsibly and who
>cannot, so a blanket condemnation is often the only practical avenue to
>pursue.
Nonsense. It's a baby-and-bathwater scenario. The only way you can prevent
*ALL* murder is to kill everyone preemptively. If you don't, sooner or later,
one of them *WILL* kill another.
People can "misuse" *ANY* freedom. The only thing you can rationally do is
put the penalties on the misuse, not the freedom.
>Why should I have to wait until it affects me? By that time, it may have a
>major detrimental affect on me, as in a crackhead crashing his car into me,
>or robbing me, etc. It's a risk. Society has to judge whether the risk of
>abuse is worth preserving the individual freedom.
You have to wait until it affects you because otherwise you're doing exactly
what you fear - you're hurting someone else for no reason. (You have a
"reason", but your reason has nothing to do with the person you're hurting.)
Why should I have to wait for you to attack me? Why shouldn't I kill you
now to make sure you don't?
Society has to limit only those behaviors which are *IN THEMSELVES*
unacceptable - such as robbery or murder. It can't get involved in
trying to preempt crimes.
There is very little evidence that you have *ANY* greater risk of being
hit by a crackhead than you do of getting hit by someone who thinks he'll
get promoted if he's at work five minutes early every day. In fact, no
evidence at all, really.
It's all made up. The entire thing appears to stem from the realization
that hemp is a serious risk to cotton.
>Hey, it's my freedom to be able to sell drugs out of my house, right?
If you can do so without harming your environment, I'd have to agree.
>Those people
>who stumble out of my house and piss on your roses, well, that's them, not
>me.
This is why the law has the concept of an "attractive nuisance".
>I'm not responsbile for them. You talk to them about it. Don't mind
>their guns -- they are just exercising their right to protect themselves.
Well, if you had a gun, you wouldn't be so paranoid about the possibility
of someone with a gun pissing on your lawn.
Essentially, the entire *situation* exists only because these people have
been told that they will be criminals no matter what. While they may have
a real chance at a "decent" living, they don't *think* they do, they're
told they don't, and there's very little reason for them to bother to try.
Do you associate the same problem with someone who has dinner parties
with wine? No.
But, if this were the roaring 20's, and we still had Prohibition, you *would*,
because illegal substances tend to create a niche for people with guns.
People who have already broken a "serious" law have very little marginal
incentive not to carry unregistered guns.
Society *ought* to weigh the costs of making something illegal, including
side-effects. It normally doesn't, and that's where we get massive failures
like prohibition, or the war on drugs. It's stupid. Resturaunts that happen
to serve alcohol aren't known for creating a huge problem. Speakeasies did.
Peter Seebach
>In effect, if the majority of people decide something, it usually becomes
>law in most societies. What is your point? Did the Nazis have a right to
>exterminate Jews? I think in light of the world community's response, the
>answer is no.
Okay...
What if we *DIDN'T* stop them?
Would they then have been moral?
Were they moral until we got involved?
You're wrong. Admit it, fix your worldview, and move on.
Numbers don't make right. Right is already there, no matter who understands
it.
>The "Nazis were a government therefore all governments are evil" argument is
>silly, just as is the argument that since the Nazis wrongly impinged upon
>personal freedoms therefore any government that impinges upon personal
>freedoms is wrong.
You've got it backwards. Impinging on personal freedoms is wrong, therefore,
governments which do so are also wrong.
>When you accept the benefits of society, you also accept some loss of
>personal freedom.
Untrue. There are no personal freedoms you need to give up for a healthy
society. The "freedoms" you're doubtless going to try to bring up were
never yours to begin with; even without "society", they were still wrong.
>>"The persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany was moral."
>Who determines morality? Usually, the people in power.
No. The people in power determine what fuckhead sheep like you will
agree is moral because that's what they've been told.
Morality is already there.
>Anyway, I suspect that had most Germans really known what was going and been
>given a chance to vote, they would have voted against genocide.
Bullshit. They would have said "society has a right to pursue the ideal
of being Jew-free", just like you said. Oh, sure, *you* can see the
difference between drugs and Jews - but you wouldn't if the government were
telling you it was Jews that were behind your problems.
You're too ready to accept the government's current scapegoat.
>Here in the
>US we send Asian-Americans to camps. We went part of the way down the path
>that the Nazis followed.
Yup. And we were wrong, *EVEN THOUGH EVERYONE THOUGHT IT WAS REASONABLE
AT THE TIME*.
Might doesn't make right.
>Societies cannot function without rules; human nature is such that we need
>rules when we live together. Rules impinge upon our freedom. There's just no
>getting around it. It's a tradeoff.
This is wrong in several ways. Go read a book on how premises and conclusions
work together, and come back to us.
Courageous
> >> members decide that is important.
> >Wouldn't that have made the persecution of the Jews in Nazi
> >Germany by definition therefore a moral act?
>
> In effect, if the majority of people decide something, it usually becomes
> law in most societies. What is your point? Did the Nazis have a right to
> exterminate Jews? I think in light of the world community's response, the
> answer is no.
Okay. Then each and every nation is subject to the moral judgement
of the world community, correct?
> The "Nazis were a government therefore all governments are evil" argument is
> silly, just as is the argument that since the Nazis wrongly impinged upon
> personal freedoms therefore any government that impinges upon personal
> freedoms is wrong.
Straw man: I didn't make that argument. I am merely pointing
out an exception to the rule that majority opinion makes right.
> >"The persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany was moral."
> Who determines morality? Usually, the people in power.
Says YOU. I disagree.
> Anyway, I suspect that had most Germans really known what was going and been
> given a chance to vote, they would have voted against genocide.
Adolf Hitler was overwhelming popular in Germany.
> Here in the US we send Asian-Americans to camps. We went part of the
> way down the path that the Nazis followed.
I agree. And it was wrong, even though it was supported by
the majority.
> >The one problem with refuting the above statement is that
> >it will show your epistemology to be internally inconsistent.
> >You will then have to retract, restate, or clarify your
> >position.
>
> Societies cannot function without rules; human nature is such that we need
> rules when we live together. Rules impinge upon our freedom. There's just no
> getting around it. It's a tradeoff.
False. If "freedom," by definition does not include the freedom
to take away freedom from another human being, then the above
statement is false. You can have plenty of rules that ensure
personal liberty.
C/
Mark Asher
snip
>I contend that the will of the majority is a poor measuring stick
>for right and wrong. I contend that the "group right" (sic) of the
>german people to be "free from the disgusting presence of living
>dirty jews" is a right that exists under your moral epistemology as
>you have presented it so far.
>
>I realize that you very likely don't actually believe this. And if
>I am correct, and you don't believe this, I have one last assertion:
>your moral/ethical epistemology as you have presented it is internally
>inconsistent.
>
>It is now time for you to retract, restate, or clarify.
As I said, individual rights need to be safeguarded as well, but there is
ample room to debate which individual rights need to be protected and which
can be discarded in favor of the greater good of the many. Why is it an
either/or situation? Either we have complete individual freedom, or we agree
to be ruled by the Nazis? Isn't there some middle ground?
>> I never claimed "group rights" were something in the Constitution. I was
>> using it to describe the neccessity of balancing the needs of the many
>> against the wishes of the individual.
>
>On a remote imaginary island, there is a village of 100 villagers.
>A volcano on this island is rumbling and is apparently going to erupt.
>The local villagers decide to placate the volcano goddess and by
>a vote of 99-1 decide to sacrifice oneo of the village virgins to
>the volcano goddess.
>
>Is this act "murder" or merely "balancing the needs of the many
>against the wishes of the individual"?
It's both -- I never said that communities were incapable of doing wrong.
That's why we have rules. In an enlightened community, there would be a rule
against human sacrifice -- that person's right to live would be safeguarded.
What if sacrificing the individual really did keep the volcano from blowing
and saved the other 99 lives? Your problem is that you picked a bad example.
Pick one with real consequences both ways, one where many will be harmed or
just one person will be harmed. Then tell me what you do?
>Enquiring minds wanna know.
Indeed.
Mark Asher
Courageous
> of being Jew-free", just like you said.
Just for the record, neither Mark nor anyone else in this
thread or newsgroup said that. I merely quoted it as if
it were being said, for the sake of an argument.
C/
Peter Seebach
>against human sacrifice -- that person's right to live would be safeguarded.
>What if sacrificing the individual really did keep the volcano from blowing
>and saved the other 99 lives? Your problem is that you picked a bad example.
>Pick one with real consequences both ways, one where many will be harmed or
>just one person will be harmed. Then tell me what you do?
That's a much tougher question. It depends on who, what the harm is, and
all that. If society decides, it may depend on the percieved value of those
people to society.
Human life is without price, but if you spend all your resources saving one
person, you may be unable to save a dozen later. You have to be pretty
careful with this stuff.
Peter Seebach
Well, he said it, if you replace "Jew" with "drug". But, as he's made very
clear, whatever society believes it wants to be free of is reasonable, or
at least, so he seems to think.
It's not an entirely inconsistent viewpoint, but it sure is wrong.
Courageous
> >I am correct, and you don't believe this, I have one last assertion:
> >your moral/ethical epistemology as you have presented it is internally
> >inconsistent.
> >It is now time for you to retract, restate, or clarify.
> As I said, individual rights need to be safeguarded as well, but there is
> ample room to debate which individual rights need to be protected and which
> can be discarded in favor of the greater good of the many. Why is it an
> either/or situation? Either we have complete individual freedom, or we agree
> to be ruled by the Nazis? Isn't there some middle ground?
There *may* be a middle ground, but as long as it's "wherever
the hell you want it to be," it is fair for me to say that you
don't have an epistemology for us to discuss. Perhaps if you
could better define what that middle ground is we could discuss
the matter more intelligently.
> >On a remote imaginary island, there is a village of 100 villagers.
> >A volcano on this island is rumbling and is apparently going to erupt.
> >The local villagers decide to placate the volcano goddess and by
> >a vote of 99-1 decide to sacrifice oneo of the village virgins to
> >the volcano goddess. Is this act "murder" or merely "balancing the
> >needs of the many against the wishes of the individual"?
> It's both -- I never said that communities were incapable of doing wrong.
> That's why we have rules. In an enlightened community, there would be a rule
> against human sacrifice -- that person's right to live would be safeguarded.
> What if sacrificing the individual really did keep the volcano from blowing
> and saved the other 99 lives? Your problem is that you picked a bad example.
> Pick one with real consequences both ways, one where many will be harmed or
> just one person will be harmed. Then tell me what you do?
Fair enough, I'll do that in my next reply. But first, I respectfully
request that you concede the point and say:
"Yes, it's true. Some things are immoral/unethical and should not
be done, irrespective of the wishes of the majority, no matter
how many of them think that it is right."
It seems to me that you believe the above, I would just like to
see it clearly stated.
C/
Courageous
> >thread or newsgroup said that. I merely quoted it as if
> >it were being said, for the sake of an argument.
>
> Well, he said it, if you replace "Jew" with "drug". But, as he's made very
> clear, whatever society believes it wants to be free of is reasonable, or
> at least, so he seems to think.
>
> It's not an entirely inconsistent viewpoint, but it sure is wrong.
I agree. It is incorrect. I don't think that he really believes
that... I merely think that this isn't an area that he has
explored from the point of view of philosophical/epistemological
consistency.
To be fair, most people do NOT have an epistemological basis for
what they believe ought to be -- or ought not to be -- illegal.
So cut him some slack while he digests our opinions. :)
C/
Mark Asher
wrote:
>>Society has a right to pursue the ideal of being drug-free, should its
>>members decide that is important.
>
>of being free of people who have sex for pleasure, or the right to pursue
>the "ideal" of being free of black people with an education. Individual
>rights are important too.
That's why I said it's important to safeguard individual rights. I just
don't go so far as to claim than individual rights are more important than
the general good of the many.
It's easy to make an argument that drug use is detrimental to society in a
general sense, even if many individuals can use drugs respsonsibly. So it's
easy to extend that and make a law that illegalizes drugs. Would American
society be better off if it was drug-free? If you agree with that, then it
simply becomes a matter of judgement -- can we become drug-free? If yes,
it's probably worth pursuing. If no, then we make rules that minimize the
impact of drugs on our society.
>>The problem with drug use and a lot of other "freedoms" is that there is
no
>>way for society to determine who can use this freedom responsibly and who
>>cannot, so a blanket condemnation is often the only practical avenue to
>>pursue.
>
>Nonsense. It's a baby-and-bathwater scenario. The only way you can
prevent
>*ALL* murder is to kill everyone preemptively. If you don't, sooner or
later,
>one of them *WILL* kill another.
Nah -- better to regulate weapons. When your solution is the same as the
effect you want to prevent -- death -- you have come up with a very silly
example.
How do you propose that the government pick out the individuals who can use
drugs responsibly and not wreck their lives?
>People can "misuse" *ANY* freedom. The only thing you can rationally do is
>put the penalties on the misuse, not the freedom.
Society can decide that the potential misuse of some freedoms is not worth
their being allowed.
>You have to wait until it affects you because otherwise you're doing
exactly
>what you fear - you're hurting someone else for no reason. (You have a
>"reason", but your reason has nothing to do with the person you're
hurting.)
Some freedoms that can be misused and as a result hurt others are not worth
protecting. If no one's around, why shouldn't I have the freedom to run a
red-light, speed, drive on the wrong side of the road? Why do I need to keep
my house in a state of repair? Why shouldn't I be allowed to raise tigers in
my backyard?
>Why should I have to wait for you to attack me? Why shouldn't I kill you
>now to make sure you don't?
>
>Society has to limit only those behaviors which are *IN THEMSELVES*
>unacceptable - such as robbery or murder. It can't get involved in
>trying to preempt crimes.
Why not? Why can't we be astute judges of human nature and attempt to
regulate behavior? Why can't we look at the big picture?
>There is very little evidence that you have *ANY* greater risk of being
>hit by a crackhead than you do of getting hit by someone who thinks he'll
>get promoted if he's at work five minutes early every day. In fact, no
>evidence at all, really.
Only the evidence that people on drugs or drunk don't drive safely. How much
more evidence do I need? I'd love to be able to separate the safe drivers
from the lousy drivers, but how do we do this in a cost-effective manner? We
can't.
>It's all made up. The entire thing appears to stem from the realization
>that hemp is a serious risk to cotton.
Hemp? What about crack cocaine? Heroin? I'm not talking pot.
>>Hey, it's my freedom to be able to sell drugs out of my house, right?
>
>If you can do so without harming your environment, I'd have to agree.
>
>>Those people
>>who stumble out of my house and piss on your roses, well, that's them, not
>>me.
>
>This is why the law has the concept of an "attractive nuisance".
That law infringes on my personal rights. I'm not the one pissing in your
bushes. (Why aren't gun shops "attractive nuisances"?) Why am I suddenly
responsible for the people who come to buy drugs from me?
>>I'm not responsbile for them. You talk to them about it. Don't mind
>>their guns -- they are just exercising their right to protect themselves.
>
>Well, if you had a gun, you wouldn't be so paranoid about the possibility
>of someone with a gun pissing on your lawn.
Believe me, if I saw guys with guns taking a leak in my yard, I'd be very
paranoid. Initiating gunfights really lowers your probability of living to a
ripe old age, cowboy.
>Essentially, the entire *situation* exists only because these people have
>been told that they will be criminals no matter what. While they may have
>a real chance at a "decent" living, they don't *think* they do, they're
>told they don't, and there's very little reason for them to bother to try.
Now you're getting into unprovable fairy tales.
>Do you associate the same problem with someone who has dinner parties
>with wine? No.
Stumbling out and pissing on the lawn? Sure I do. I've been to many parties
in my day where people take leaks everywhere. It's not that they've crossed
some imaginary moral line and now don't give a damn -- it's because they're
drunk or high or otherwise out of their heads.
>But, if this were the roaring 20's, and we still had Prohibition, you
*would*,
>because illegal substances tend to create a niche for people with guns.
People have guns now. Why do they need a niche?
>People who have already broken a "serious" law have very little marginal
>incentive not to carry unregistered guns.
Why do they have to have unregistered guns. I'm talking about a vision where
drugs are legal and I'm selling them out of my house because it's my
god-given libertarian right to do so. I'll assume that the only regulatory
law on guns in this same free society is whether you can afford one or not.
>Society *ought* to weigh the costs of making something illegal, including
>side-effects. It normally doesn't, and that's where we get massive
failures
>like prohibition, or the war on drugs. It's stupid. Resturaunts that
happen
>to serve alcohol aren't known for creating a huge problem. Speakeasies
did.
I think most drugs should be decriminalized. I don't have a problem with
society regulating drug use, however. I just think the war on drugs doesn't
work and is a waste. I don't think drug use is a sacrosant individual right.
Mark Asher
Mark Asher
wrote:
>>In effect, if the majority of people decide something, it usually becomes
>>law in most societies. What is your point? Did the Nazis have a right to
>>exterminate Jews? I think in light of the world community's response, the
>>answer is no.
>
>
>What if we *DIDN'T* stop them?
>
>Would they then have been moral?
The victors write the history books.
>Were they moral until we got involved?
Were we moral to drop the atom bombs on Japanese civilians?
>You're wrong. Admit it, fix your worldview, and move on.
Wrong in what way? By saying that the Nazis were wrong to exterminate Jews?
>
>Numbers don't make right. Right is already there, no matter who
understands
>it.
One person's individual right's are not worth preserving if many people will
be damaged as a result. You are taking the extreme stance that if individual
rights are sacrificed, then we are inviting the Nazis in. That's not the
case.
>>The "Nazis were a government therefore all governments are evil" argument
is
>>silly, just as is the argument that since the Nazis wrongly impinged upon
>>personal freedoms therefore any government that impinges upon personal
>>freedoms is wrong.
>
>You've got it backwards. Impinging on personal freedoms is wrong,
therefore,
>governments which do so are also wrong.
I disagree. Governments have a right to regulate behavior.
>>When you accept the benefits of society, you also accept some loss of
>>personal freedom.
>
>Untrue. There are no personal freedoms you need to give up for a healthy
>society. The "freedoms" you're doubtless going to try to bring up were
>never yours to begin with; even without "society", they were still wrong.
In a perfect world made up of perfect people, we wouldn't need laws -- blah
blah. I'm talking practicalities. We have to regulate some freedoms. Society
would fall apart otherwise.
>>>"The persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany was moral."
>
>>Who determines morality? Usually, the people in power.
>
>No. The people in power determine what fuckhead sheep like you will
>agree is moral because that's what they've been told.
Now now -- you are damaging me by calling me names in a public forum,
although your right to freedom of speech allows you to. My, what a collision
we have here.
I'm talking idealism here. When I say that the people in power determine
morality, all I mean is that they make the rules. Sure, we can argue about
platonic forms and all that, but meanwhile Rome burns.
>Morality is already there.
>
>>Anyway, I suspect that had most Germans really known what was going and
been
>>given a chance to vote, they would have voted against genocide.
>
>Bullshit. They would have said "society has a right to pursue the ideal
>of being Jew-free", just like you said. Oh, sure, *you* can see the
>difference between drugs and Jews - but you wouldn't if the government were
>telling you it was Jews that were behind your problems.
Maybe they would have. Maybe the entire world might have, and then the Jews
would have been completely eradicated. I have never once said the Nazis were
right in their conduct -- merely that they held the reins of power.
>You're too ready to accept the government's current scapegoat.
????
>>Here in the
>>US we send Asian-Americans to camps. We went part of the way down the path
>>that the Nazis followed.
>
>Yup. And we were wrong, *EVEN THOUGH EVERYONE THOUGHT IT WAS REASONABLE
>AT THE TIME*.
Sure we were wrong. Did I say we were right? How many times do I have to say
that individual rights have to be safeguarded? This doesn't mean that some
individual rights can't be infringed upon or done away with, though. It's a
matter of balance. It's not all or nothing, one way or the other.
>Might doesn't make right.
>
>>Societies cannot function without rules; human nature is such that we need
>>rules when we live together. Rules impinge upon our freedom. There's just
no
>>getting around it. It's a tradeoff.
>
>This is wrong in several ways. Go read a book on how premises and
conclusions
>work together, and come back to us.
Ah, nice dismissal. When you're out of arguments, fade away, eh? I'd love to
hear your theory of how an organized society can exist without rules.
Mark Asher
Mark Asher
>>> of being Jew-free", just like you said.
>
>>thread or newsgroup said that. I merely quoted it as if
>>it were being said, for the sake of an argument.
>
>Well, he said it, if you replace "Jew" with "drug". But, as he's made very
>clear, whatever society believes it wants to be free of is reasonable, or
>at least, so he seems to think.
I wasn't the one to drag the Nazis into the debate. I was given them as an
example. I never once said anything about substituting "Nazis" for "drugs."
Do I think that societies have the right to make laws that curtail
individual freedoms? Yes. I just think that societies, like individuals,
need to be wise when they consider passing such laws.
Do any of us think we should have the freedom drive the wrong way on the
highway? Of course not. Why is it such a substantial leap then for a society
to judge that drugs are bad for it, and pass laws to regulate drug use? This
is not Nazism at work, but society attempting to grapple with problems.
Mark Asher
Mark Asher
snip
>Fair enough, I'll do that in my next reply. But first, I respectfully
>request that you concede the point and say:
>
>"Yes, it's true. Some things are immoral/unethical and should not
> be done, irrespective of the wishes of the majority, no matter
> how many of them think that it is right."
Most of the time, sure. But there's always exceptions. Besides, from a
practical standpoint, it often doesn't matter. Did the Nazis care if they
were right or wrong? Did it stop them? Did their historical example prevent
the atrocities in Cambodia, Rwanda, or Bosnia? That's why it's important to
take a practical approach instead of an idealistic one.
And, I won't agree that your statement covers every individual freedom,
including some that *most* of the time result in no harm to anyone. Even
free speech is regulated.
Mark Asher
Mark Asher
>> >> Society has a right to pursue the ideal of being drug-free, should its
>> >> members decide that is important.
>
>> >Germany by definition therefore a moral act?
>>
>> law in most societies. What is your point? Did the Nazis have a right to
>> exterminate Jews? I think in light of the world community's response, the
>> answer is no.
>
>of the world community, correct?
To some extent. However, it will take military might to enforce such
judgement in many cases. It's silly to think that we are an isolated country
and what we do has no effect on others and what others do has no effect on
us.
>> The "Nazis were a government therefore all governments are evil" argument
is
>> silly, just as is the argument that since the Nazis wrongly impinged upon
>> personal freedoms therefore any government that impinges upon personal
>> freedoms is wrong.
>
>Straw man: I didn't make that argument. I am merely pointing
>out an exception to the rule that majority opinion makes right.
The majority opinion makes the rules. Sometimes they are good rules, and
sometimes not.
>> >"The persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany was moral."
>
>> Who determines morality? Usually, the people in power.
>
>Says YOU. I disagree.
From a practical standpoint, they do. Forget "morality" and substitute in
"laws" or "rules".
>> Anyway, I suspect that had most Germans really known what was going and
been
>> given a chance to vote, they would have voted against genocide.
>
>Adolf Hitler was overwhelming popular in Germany.
But did most of the people know that he was making lampshades out of skin?
>> Societies cannot function without rules; human nature is such that we
need
>> rules when we live together. Rules impinge upon our freedom. There's just
no
>> getting around it. It's a tradeoff.
>
>False. If "freedom," by definition does not include the freedom
>to take away freedom from another human being, then the above
>statement is false. You can have plenty of rules that ensure
>personal liberty.
Not every scrap of personal liberty is sacrosant. Some can be sacrificed for
the greater good of society. That's my position. Impinging upon some
liberties doesn't mean that a society is equivalent to Nazi Germany.
Mark Asher
Courageous
> >against human sacrifice -- that person's right to live would be safeguarded.
> >What if sacrificing the individual really did keep the volcano from blowing
> >and saved the other 99 lives? Your problem is that you picked a bad example.
> >Pick one with real consequences both ways, one where many will be harmed or
> >just one person will be harmed. Then tell me what you do?
>
> all that. If society decides, it may depend on the percieved value of those
> people to society.
The classic example of this is the speeding ticket:
Do we as individuals have the "right" to be free of
a certain amount of risk to our own individual safety?
A clearer example of this is:
Do you have the right to disallow your neighbor from
installing a nitroglycerine factory inside his living
room?
Trespass Theory resolves many of these problems once
the problems occur, but it leaves unanswered what happens
when someone else RISKS our safety recklessly. Resolving
a "risky trespass" is ultimately what we're all trying
to accomplish I think.
It bears thought.
C/
Courageous
> the greater good of society. That's my position. Impinging upon some
> liberties doesn't mean that a society is equivalent to Nazi Germany.
You're getting really good at blowing over straw men, Mark.
I never said society was equivalent to Nazi Germany. I merely
pointed out that if popularity defined morality, rubbing out
the jews was moral.
C/
Courageous
> practical standpoint, it often doesn't matter.
This is not true, Mark. From a practical standpoint, some
violations of morality tell the freedom fighters who they
can kill without remorse.
C/
Mark Asher
wrote:
>>That's why I said it's important to safeguard individual rights. I just
>>don't go so far as to claim than individual rights are more important than
>>the general good of the many.
>
enough
>for "the many", it is probably infringing on their rights. :)
>
>However, "the general good of the many" is not sufficient to say, for
>instance, that it is reasonable to randomly choose 10% of the population
>and take all their stuff and give it to everyone else, even though
>this is clearly "the general good of the many".
Sure, you can always take a general principle and come up with a ridiculous
example. That doesn't invalidate the principle, though, when we are talking
about its practical application.
The same attitude that says it's ok to define an acceptable pollution level
(pollution is harmful, even in acceptable levels) also works with the issue
of drugs. "By legalizing these substances, we can predict that X number of
people will be harmed. Therefore, we should not allow these subtances to be
used."
>There *IS* no "many". There are a whole lot of individuals, each with
>exactly the same rights.
There are both. Besides, I'm arguing that societies can ask all members to
give up some rights, not just a few members.
>>It's easy to make an argument that drug use is detrimental to society in a
>>general sense, even if many individuals can use drugs respsonsibly.
>
>And just as easy to make the same argument about alcohol, aspirin, codine,
>online gaming, gambling, the internet, rock music, or oral sex.
Sure. What's your point? My argument isn't that every thing under the sun
that might be harmful should be regulated, but that socities have a right to
pick and choose. Organized gambling is a good example -- there's little
doubt that it's harmful and most people lose, so why not ban it? The
practical answer is that it's better to allow it and regulate it than to
force it underground. Or maybe not. Maybe it's better just to do away with
it. No one said these issues were easy.
>In fact, *EVERY ONE OF THOSE* has been subjected to the same argument at
>least once.
>
>Interesting, huh?
Not really. Societies have always been in the business of regulating its
members. It would be surprising if these issues were not debated.
>>So it's
>>easy to extend that and make a law that illegalizes drugs.
>
>Yes. It's also easy to extend it and make a law that illegalizes oral sex,
>and indeed, most states have one. It's also easy to extend it to a law
>against alcohol, and we all saw how well *THAT* one worked.
You're confusing the effectiveness of a law with the right of society to
enact such laws. There are laws against murder, yet murders still occur.
Guess the laws are stupid, eh?
>The argument that "foo is detrimental" is meaningless; you must contrast
>it with alternatives. Criminalizing something sometimes *INCREASES* its
>detrimental effects!
I'm sure this is debatable. Perhaps it does among the select percentage who
ignore the law. But the contrary argument is that by criminalizing it, you
effectively ward off a certain percentage of the populace who would have
used the substance or engaged in the activity. I think that's the reasoning
behind drug laws -- "Let's try to contain crack cocaine use to 5% of the
population instead of legalizing it and seeing 15% become users."
>>If you agree with that, then it
>>simply becomes a matter of judgement -- can we become drug-free?
>
>Perhaps. But, at what cost?
I tend to think we can't become drug-free, which is why I support
decriminizaltion.
>If you instantly, without *ANY* trial, shot everyone who expressed a
>willingness to kill anyone else, even if it was obviously a joke, you
>would cut down on the murder rate - but most people would grant that
>this is excessive.
Most people? Heh. Why do you insist on extreme examples that have no basis
in reality?
>Now, we *do* use significant force against people who make jokes about
>taking bombs on planes, but the reason is that a bomb on a plane can
>kill *HUNDREDS* of people.
Crack cocaine can and has killed hundreds of people.
>Someone doing drugs, on his own time, can kill *ONE* person, and it's one
>he's got every right to kill.
Someone on crack is more likely to commit a violent crime, be less likely to
hold a job, etc. You argue individuals, I'll argue demographics.
snip
>Look at it this way: When a completely innocent person is shot for
sleeping
>on the couch in his own house, because someone *THOUGHT* there might be
drugs
>involved, that's a cost. That is a *MURDER* of a *COMPLETELY INNOCENT*
>person. That's a cost associated with the war on drugs.
Sure. And when a crack addict knifes someone for $20, that's also murder.
>Compare the cost of trying to eliminate alcohol with the cost of trying
>to regulate it. Alcohol is taxed, and the taxes go towards funding
programs
>to minimize the harmful effects. It works. This is a better model.
I agree. This has nothing to do with the argument of whether society can
regulate the rights of its members, though. I'd argue that taxes are just
one form of such regulation.
>>How do you propose that the government pick out the individuals who can
use
>>drugs responsibly and not wreck their lives?
>
>The same way it picks out individuals who can use alcohol responsibly. The
>same way it picks out individuals who can handle net access without turning
>into psychotic kooks.
>
>You don't.
In other words, since one demon (alcohol) is loose, set them all free.
Then you can predict a certain amount of violence and misery will result.
>If people's behavior *BECOMES* a problem, you deal with it. If you find
>patterns that seem to be problems, you try to create treatment programs.
That's one approach. Another is to remove the source of the problem.
>>Society can decide that the potential misuse of some freedoms is not worth
>>their being allowed.
>
>Yes. Society frequently does. It is wrong to do so, in general. Society
>has, in the past, decided that the "misuse" of freedoms is not worth
>allowing them, and has forbidden alcohol, Christianity, Judaism, Islam,
>Buddhism, Communism, and the desire for democracy. People have been
*KILLED*
>for every one of those.
I agree -- it's not a perfect world. I'd argue that libertarianism would
worsen things. Order is generally better than chaos. Order comes with a
pricetag attached.
>>Some freedoms that can be misused and as a result hurt others are not
worth
>>protecting.
>
>The freedom to walk can hurt others. This is a bullshit line of reasoning.
>*ANYTHING* can hurt people. People have been killed with pencils. People
>have been killed by not knowing that you can't mix some bleach with some
>drain openers.
Gee whiz, what a tyrannical government it is that makes me spend an extra
$0.02 per bottle of medicine to add a childproof cap. It's up to people to
be responsible for their own actions and children -- not me!
>>If no one's around, why shouldn't I have the freedom to run a
>>red-light, speed, drive on the wrong side of the road?
>
>Because you may be wrong as to whether or not no one's around. Note,
however,
>that you *ARE* allowed to - at least, the only way anyone will stop you is
>if someone *is* around.
By that reasoning, I'm allowed to do anything if I can get away with it.
>>Why do I need to keep
>>my house in a state of repair?
>
>Arguably because it can become a "public health hazard".
The fricking public doesn't have a standing invitation to come on my
property. My rights are being violated if you make me fix that broken
window.
>>Why shouldn't I be allowed to raise tigers in
>>my backyard?
>
>You should, as long as you can keep them from hurting anyone. In practice,
>American society tends, these days, to err on the side of caution, possibly
>because we're one of the most amazingly litigious societies ever seen.
It's always more complex than you libertarians want to cede. If you raise
tigers in your backyard, you've just dropped the value of my house a great
deal. You've damaged me. Doesn't matter how responsible you are.
>>Why not? Why can't we be astute judges of human nature and attempt to
>>regulate behavior? Why can't we look at the big picture?
>
>Because "looking at the big picture" means "ignoring the pieces that go
>into it'.
No it doesn't.
>Because "attempting to regulate behavior" is a bad goal. When you start
>trying to make a perfect world, you have to pick whose perfect world
>you create. Do you create the perfect world in which women must wear
>veils in public? It's widely accepted, by more people than live in the
>U.S., that women not wearing veils in public places are an incitement
>to immorality.
Regulating behavior is not an attempt to create a perfect world, and in many
cases is detrimental. Driving on the right side of the road is a law that
regulates my behavior.
It depends on what the goal is. If it's to make the streets safer for
driving, why not regulate behavior? I'll repeat this once more just because
I see another extreme example forming -- individual rights must be
safeguarded. Just not every single one in every single situation.
>We allow them to do so anyway because we have mostly realized that the
>time to fuss about 'incitement' to immorality is when the 'immoral'
behavior
>is actually likely to hurt someone, not before.
>
>>Only the evidence that people on drugs or drunk don't drive safely.
>
>Indeed. So who says that a given crackhead is dumb enough to drive while
>high?
Numbers say. Numbers say X number of [pick one: crackheads; drunks; heroine
addicts; crystal meth users] will attempt to drive.
>Look up the word "conflate".
>
>You are assuming that *ALL* of the attributes of a dumb, filthy, violent,
>hostile, sociopathic drug user are "attributes of drug users". This is a
>bad thing to do. It's irrational.
No I'm not. I'm just not prefacing every remark with "Some but not all."
>People who are drunk do not, indeed, drive safely. The solution is not to
>ban alcohol, it's to ban *driving drunk*.
One solution is to ban alcohol. How can you dispute that?
>>How much
>>more evidence do I need? I'd love to be able to separate the safe drivers
>>from the lousy drivers, but how do we do this in a cost-effective manner?
We
>>can't.
>
>True. So, instead, we declare that certain causes of bad driving are
>forbidden *TO PEOPLE WHO ARE DRIVING*.
>
>You are not allowed, at least where I live, to have an open alcoholic
beverage
>in a car. Period. Ever. That doesn't mean you can't have beer, and it
>doesn't mean you can't have a car, or have beer in a car, or have an open
>beer, but you cannot have an open beer in a car.
>
>This is a technique where you try to target the *PROBLEM*. Not anything
>that might be related, vaguely, to the problem.
Another technique is to target the source.
>Do you want to ban cough syrup? I'm assured that many cough medications
may
>render someone unfit to drive.
We have laws that say you have to be responsible when you get behind the
wheel. I'm not unhappy with those laws.
>>Hemp? What about crack cocaine? Heroin? I'm not talking pot.
>
>Yes, but the war on drugs evolved from the pot war.
>
>What about them? Assume that, somewhere in your city, someone is using
>crack. He is not violent. He is somehow able to make his own, so no
>one is running around "dealing". He doesn't drive under the influence.
>But, Saturday night, if there's nothing good at the local theatre, he
>makes himself up some crack (I know, this is not practical), smokes it,
>and watches TV.
>
>How is he harming you?
>
>If he's not, then a law against crack is a bad law, because it's affecting
>people who are in no way part of the problem.
He's not. But multiply him by 100, and some of them will not stay home. Some
of them will not have the money to buy crack, and will steal it. Some of
them will be at home and someone will come over and something bad will
happen.
Multiply him by 100,000, and he will harm me. Or you. Or someone we know.
Eventually.
>If the problem is gangs, you have to find out why people join gangs. It's
>mostly because the money is incredible - $1k/day is not unreasonable. I
>knew a guy who used to sell drugs, because the markup was 10-1; he'd buy
>something for $7 and sell it for $70.
>
>Now, this *WAS* true of alcohol. During prohibition. Because, when
something
>is illegal, and you get it on the black market, there's a big markup. The
>black market is, of course, likely to generate people with guns defending
>turf, because it's very lucrative.
>
>On the other hand, when was the last time you saw a guy with a gun hanging
>out under a street light asking people if they wanted Tylenol?
Once again, I agree with decriminalization. This has nothing to do with the
argument over whether society has a right to regulate its members. It's a
matter of practicality.
>>That law infringes on my personal rights. I'm not the one pissing in your
>>bushes. (Why aren't gun shops "attractive nuisances"?) Why am I suddenly
>>responsible for the people who come to buy drugs from me?
>
>For the same reason that you're responsible if you have a swimming pool and
>no fence. It's not necessarily a very good law.
The swimming pool issue is a great one. Little kids have a habit of falling
in and drowning. You should put up a fence, even if someone else's kids are
not your responsibility. This is a perfect example of a good law that
infringes upon your personal rights.
>In general, you shouldn't be held responsible for those people - but on the
>other hand, if they get arrested for trespassing, they'll eventually stop
>coming back.
Ho ho -- that's your answer? Eventually those numbskull crackheads visiting
my crackhouse who are bugging you by pissing in your garden are going to be
discouraged by trespassing convictions?
>Part of the problem is that, in the proposed scenario, the police who
should
>be dealing with the actual problem (people tresspassing and littering, et
>al.) are too busy trying to find "drugz".
Not in my world. Drugs are legal, remember? Even the best neighborhoods have
their crackhouses.
>>Believe me, if I saw guys with guns taking a leak in my yard, I'd be very
>>paranoid. Initiating gunfights really lowers your probability of living to
a
>>ripe old age, cowboy.
>
>Sure does. So, why can't you call the cops? Because they're too busy
trying
>to bust someone for going down on his girlfriend.
Wrong-o. That's never prosecuted.
>Fix the problem of
>victimless crimes, and you have a lot more resources to deal with real
>problems.
Sure. But that doesn't mean that a society doesn't have the right to
regulate its members.
snip
I give up. You've outlasted me.
Mark Asher
Courageous
> >epistemological basis in what you're saying. All you are doing is reciting
> >your opinions--which have no observable basis, epistemological or otherwise.
>
> Your belief that he exists has no "observable" basis. He's telling you
> what his premises are. Accept them or reject them as you will, but those
> are premises, and he has at least tried to arrange to have premises from
> which he can derive the rest of his views.
Furthermore, his statement that my opinions have "no observable
basis, epistemological or otherwise" is not actually true. I'll
comment more on this tomorrow when I have time if someone doesn't
do so for me. :) Nice chatting with you, Peter. :)
C/
Roark
> Even free speech is regulated.
"Societal rights advocates" always rely on the arguments that government
is right and that its behavioral precedents rationalize any legislation
they happen to agree with.
You like to argue about limiting the rights of the individual for the
benefit of society and the underprivileged ... yet ... you don't seem to
have any qualms about putting yourself in positions of authority or high
visibility.
Survey says... Democrat?
> Mark Asher
>
>
>
Neil Harrington
> In threads where I have talked about the non-agression
> principle, coercion, and the like (most of these threads
> are on talk.poltics.libertarian, not in c.s.i.p.g.r),
> I only talk about that as the epistemlogical basis for
> my beliefs. In fact, I find it alarming that your average
> person has no epistemological basis for their beliefs
> on what government should or should not do. Some things
> are WRONG, whether or not 95% of everyone calls it right.
> Slavery was WRONG.
No. That's nonsense. Slavery was neither right nor wrong. It was a
well-established and thoroughly accepted institution for thousands of years,
everywhere in the world that any sort of civilization existed. Europeans had
slaves, Egyptians had slaves, sub-Saharan Africans had slaves, Arabs had
slaves, classical Greeks and Romans had slaves, Biblical Hebrews had slaves,
Chinese had slaves, Aztecs and Incas had slaves, North American Indians had
slaves, and the list goes on and on.
It is wrong by the moral values and standards of today, in most (not all)
parts of the world. So it is both easy and politically correct to declare
yourself against slavery. No one will defend it. A few hundred years ago it
was perfectly normal, natural, and proper, virtually no one objected to it,
and you wouldn't have either. You are trying to apply current
standards--which have existed for only the tick of a clock in the time frame
of human existence--to all the social history that preceded it.
You are using the term "wrong" to describe as an absolute something that is
purely a matter of fashion, and could change in another century for all you
know. Right and wrong are attributes invented by humans, therefore faddish
and transitory. Absolutes are the province of the cosmos, which has no
morality and couldn't care less about "right" and "wrong."
> Murder is WRONG. I'll escape this
> by fiat and simply state that some things are self-
> evident
Belief in the "self-evident" is too often the mark of a closed mind. To the
Flat Earth Society faithful it is self-evident that the earth is flat, and
no amount of logical argument will budge that belief. And that's a physical
question to which there really is a correct and provable answer. When on the
other hand you get into questions of morality, "right" and "wrong" are
generally impossible to establish with proof. What is self-evidently wrong
to one man may be self-evidently right to another. The "self-evident" is
simply what most people are willing to believe without proof, which makes
the term essentially meaningless. ("Self-evident" = no real supporting
evidence.)
> (even though it aint that easy, let's just
> enter it into our debate as an assumption and call it
> a wrap). Anyway, "majority rule" or "we voted for it"
> is not and never will be a sound epistemlogical basis
> for legislation in my opinion. But then... if it isn't,
> what is?
>
> For me, the Non Aggression Principle and a strong belief
> in Natural Rights is my epistemological basis.
You keep talking about your epistemological basis, but I can find no
epistemological basis in what you're saying. All you are doing is reciting
your opinions--which have no observable basis, epistemological or otherwise.
> It is
> my moral center, what drives my decision on whether a
> law is right or wrong, and whether an action conducted
> against another human being is acceptible or not [ . . . ]
Again: all of this has to do with your personal morality, opinions,
perceptions, value system, prejudices, beliefs, whatever. Nothing there that
I can see has any connection with epistemology, unless you're referring to
the route by which you absorbed and internalized all this subjective stuff
in the first place--in which case "epistemological basis" seems a rather
grandiose way of characterizing what most would call indoctrination.
Neil Harrington
Peter Seebach
>That's why I said it's important to safeguard individual rights. I just
>don't go so far as to claim than individual rights are more important than
>the general good of the many.
I don't think they can meaningfully conflict. If you do something bad enough
for "the many", it is probably infringing on their rights. :)
However, "the general good of the many" is not sufficient to say, for
instance, that it is reasonable to randomly choose 10% of the population
and take all their stuff and give it to everyone else, even though
this is clearly "the general good of the many".
There *IS* no "many". There are a whole lot of individuals, each with
exactly the same rights.
>It's easy to make an argument that drug use is detrimental to society in a
>general sense, even if many individuals can use drugs respsonsibly.
And just as easy to make the same argument about alcohol, aspirin, codine,
online gaming, gambling, the internet, rock music, or oral sex.
In fact, *EVERY ONE OF THOSE* has been subjected to the same argument at
least once.
Interesting, huh?
>So it's
>easy to extend that and make a law that illegalizes drugs.
Yes. It's also easy to extend it and make a law that illegalizes oral sex,
and indeed, most states have one. It's also easy to extend it to a law
against alcohol, and we all saw how well *THAT* one worked.
The argument that "foo is detrimental" is meaningless; you must contrast
it with alternatives. Criminalizing something sometimes *INCREASES* its
detrimental effects!
>Would American
>society be better off if it was drug-free?
If it magically happened that no one wanted to use drugs, yes. Otherwise,
no.
>If you agree with that, then it
>simply becomes a matter of judgement -- can we become drug-free?
Perhaps. But, at what cost?
If you instantly, without *ANY* trial, shot everyone who expressed a
willingness to kill anyone else, even if it was obviously a joke, you
would cut down on the murder rate - but most people would grant that
this is excessive.
Now, we *do* use significant force against people who make jokes about
taking bombs on planes, but the reason is that a bomb on a plane can
kill *HUNDREDS* of people.
Someone doing drugs, on his own time, can kill *ONE* person, and it's one
he's got every right to kill.
>If yes,
>it's probably worth pursuing. If no, then we make rules that minimize the
>impact of drugs on our society.
You forget to look at the *cost* of trying to do it. If trying to become
"drug-free" is more expensive than leaving it alone, then it's a bad idea.
(I don't mean $, I mean *all* costs, including indirect social costs.)
Look at it this way: When a completely innocent person is shot for sleeping
on the couch in his own house, because someone *THOUGHT* there might be drugs
involved, that's a cost. That is a *MURDER* of a *COMPLETELY INNOCENT*
person. That's a cost associated with the war on drugs.
Compare the cost of trying to eliminate alcohol with the cost of trying
to regulate it. Alcohol is taxed, and the taxes go towards funding programs
to minimize the harmful effects. It works. This is a better model.
>Nah -- better to regulate weapons. When your solution is the same as the
>effect you want to prevent -- death -- you have come up with a very silly
>example.
You cannot regulate weapons well enough to prevent murder. You can kill
someone with no weapons. The murder rate is not *AT ALL* related to the
availability of *any* kind of weapons. Knives, guns, pointed sticks. The
rate of premeditated murder appears to vary with lots of things, but none
of them is "availability of weapons".
Murder is caused by people wanting to kill other people. Most of them
are damaged. Weapons aren't an issue. If you're willing to shoot someone,
the chances are you're willing to smother them, drop a brick on them from
three stories up, or poison them.
>How do you propose that the government pick out the individuals who can use
>drugs responsibly and not wreck their lives?
The same way it picks out individuals who can use alcohol responsibly. The
same way it picks out individuals who can handle net access without turning
into psychotic kooks.
You don't.
If people's behavior *BECOMES* a problem, you deal with it. If you find
patterns that seem to be problems, you try to create treatment programs.
>Society can decide that the potential misuse of some freedoms is not worth
>their being allowed.
Yes. Society frequently does. It is wrong to do so, in general. Society
has, in the past, decided that the "misuse" of freedoms is not worth
allowing them, and has forbidden alcohol, Christianity, Judaism, Islam,
Buddhism, Communism, and the desire for democracy. People have been *KILLED*
for every one of those.
The argument gets no better with time. It's still wrong.
Society has no right to muddle with a freedom that "might" be misused.
It has the right to prevent people from harming other people directly.
>Some freedoms that can be misused and as a result hurt others are not worth
>protecting.
The freedom to walk can hurt others. This is a bullshit line of reasoning.
*ANYTHING* can hurt people. People have been killed with pencils. People
have been killed by not knowing that you can't mix some bleach with some
drain openers.
>If no one's around, why shouldn't I have the freedom to run a
>red-light, speed, drive on the wrong side of the road?
Because you may be wrong as to whether or not no one's around. Note, however,
that you *ARE* allowed to - at least, the only way anyone will stop you is
if someone *is* around.
>Why do I need to keep
>my house in a state of repair?
Arguably because it can become a "public health hazard".
>Why shouldn't I be allowed to raise tigers in
>my backyard?
You should, as long as you can keep them from hurting anyone. In practice,
American society tends, these days, to err on the side of caution, possibly
because we're one of the most amazingly litigious societies ever seen.
>Why not? Why can't we be astute judges of human nature and attempt to
>regulate behavior? Why can't we look at the big picture?
Because "looking at the big picture" means "ignoring the pieces that go
into it'.
Because "attempting to regulate behavior" is a bad goal. When you start
trying to make a perfect world, you have to pick whose perfect world
you create. Do you create the perfect world in which women must wear
veils in public? It's widely accepted, by more people than live in the
U.S., that women not wearing veils in public places are an incitement
to immorality.
We allow them to do so anyway because we have mostly realized that the
time to fuss about 'incitement' to immorality is when the 'immoral' behavior
is actually likely to hurt someone, not before.
>Only the evidence that people on drugs or drunk don't drive safely.
Indeed. So who says that a given crackhead is dumb enough to drive while
high?
Look up the word "conflate".
You are assuming that *ALL* of the attributes of a dumb, filthy, violent,
hostile, sociopathic drug user are "attributes of drug users". This is a
bad thing to do. It's irrational.
People who are drunk do not, indeed, drive safely. The solution is not to
ban alcohol, it's to ban *driving drunk*.
>How much
>more evidence do I need? I'd love to be able to separate the safe drivers
>from the lousy drivers, but how do we do this in a cost-effective manner? We
>can't.
True. So, instead, we declare that certain causes of bad driving are
forbidden *TO PEOPLE WHO ARE DRIVING*.
You are not allowed, at least where I live, to have an open alcoholic beverage
in a car. Period. Ever. That doesn't mean you can't have beer, and it
doesn't mean you can't have a car, or have beer in a car, or have an open
beer, but you cannot have an open beer in a car.
This is a technique where you try to target the *PROBLEM*. Not anything
that might be related, vaguely, to the problem.
Do you want to ban cough syrup? I'm assured that many cough medications may
render someone unfit to drive.
>Hemp? What about crack cocaine? Heroin? I'm not talking pot.
Yes, but the war on drugs evolved from the pot war.
What about them? Assume that, somewhere in your city, someone is using
crack. He is not violent. He is somehow able to make his own, so no
one is running around "dealing". He doesn't drive under the influence.
But, Saturday night, if there's nothing good at the local theatre, he
makes himself up some crack (I know, this is not practical), smokes it,
and watches TV.
How is he harming you?
If he's not, then a law against crack is a bad law, because it's affecting
people who are in no way part of the problem.
If the problem is gangs, you have to find out why people join gangs. It's
mostly because the money is incredible - $1k/day is not unreasonable. I
knew a guy who used to sell drugs, because the markup was 10-1; he'd buy
something for $7 and sell it for $70.
Now, this *WAS* true of alcohol. During prohibition. Because, when something
is illegal, and you get it on the black market, there's a big markup. The
black market is, of course, likely to generate people with guns defending
turf, because it's very lucrative.
On the other hand, when was the last time you saw a guy with a gun hanging
out under a street light asking people if they wanted Tylenol?
Criminalization is a *VERY* bad solution to this problem. There are plenty
of better solutions. Tax, regulate, and tax again. If you think social
costs of a given substance are high, *TAX THE HELL OUT OF IT*.
>That law infringes on my personal rights. I'm not the one pissing in your
>bushes. (Why aren't gun shops "attractive nuisances"?) Why am I suddenly
>responsible for the people who come to buy drugs from me?
For the same reason that you're responsible if you have a swimming pool and
no fence. It's not necessarily a very good law.
In general, you shouldn't be held responsible for those people - but on the
other hand, if they get arrested for trespassing, they'll eventually stop
coming back.
Part of the problem is that, in the proposed scenario, the police who should
be dealing with the actual problem (people tresspassing and littering, et
al.) are too busy trying to find "drugz".
>Believe me, if I saw guys with guns taking a leak in my yard, I'd be very
>paranoid. Initiating gunfights really lowers your probability of living to a
>ripe old age, cowboy.
Sure does. So, why can't you call the cops? Because they're too busy trying
to bust someone for going down on his girlfriend. Fix the problem of
victimless crimes, and you have a lot more resources to deal with real
problems.
>Stumbling out and pissing on the lawn? Sure I do. I've been to many parties
>in my day where people take leaks everywhere. It's not that they've crossed
>some imaginary moral line and now don't give a damn -- it's because they're
>drunk or high or otherwise out of their heads.
Okay, so why are you objecting to the crack house, but not objecting to the
guy with the dinner parties?
>People have guns now. Why do they need a niche?
You misunderstand. Lots of people have guns. Criminalization and black
markets create a niche in which they "need" them and are much more likely
to use them.
>Why do they have to have unregistered guns. I'm talking about a vision where
>drugs are legal and I'm selling them out of my house because it's my
>god-given libertarian right to do so. I'll assume that the only regulatory
>law on guns in this same free society is whether you can afford one or not.
You're playing the game where you take about half of a solution and discover
it doesn't work, and reject the whole thing as unworkable.
Why do you think these people with guns are pissing on your lawn? What does
the crack house have to do with it? Where did drugs become part of this?
Anyway, depending on whose ideal of a libertarian society you're talking
about, you would probably either call the cops, or shoot the buggers. You
might post a 'no tresspassing' sign first.
Still, you're basically creating a very improbable scenario. You're
assuming that, in a world where drugs aren't criminalized, everyone's
still going to interact with them the way that they do now.
I know some people who sell "alternative health care" products out of their
house. Does this create people with guns pissing on lawns? No. Strange,
that - it's almost as if riff-raff are associated more with criminal activity
than with non-criminal activity.
>I think most drugs should be decriminalized. I don't have a problem with
>society regulating drug use, however. I just think the war on drugs doesn't
>work and is a waste. I don't think drug use is a sacrosant individual right.
I don't care whether or not it is, there's no way in which you can
criminalize it that isn't dramatically worse than the problem. I think
most "drugs" are plainly and obviously bad for people, but I think the
solution is taxation, surgeon general's warnings, and the like; this would
allow people to focus on real problems for a while.
Peter Seebach
Neil Harrington <n.harr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>No. That's nonsense. Slavery was neither right nor wrong.
Sorry, you lose. Slavery was *wrong*. It doesn't matter that it used
to be fashionable. It was a wrong thing. It was an abomination against
the fundemental and inalienable rights of all humanity.
>It is wrong by the moral values and standards of today, in most (not all)
>parts of the world.
Moral values are not "of today". They are "of reality". You mean "social
values".
>A few hundred years ago it
>was perfectly normal, natural, and proper, virtually no one objected to it,
>and you wouldn't have either.
Oh, of course. You're right. There were no abolitionists. The people
who thought slavery was wrong didn't exist, everyone agreed it was wonderful.
Uh-huh.
Sorry, not buying that particular bridge.
>You are trying to apply current
>standards--which have existed for only the tick of a clock in the time frame
>of human existence--to all the social history that preceded it.
No, he is trying to apply moral standards to behavior, which is perfectly
reasonable.
>You are using the term "wrong" to describe as an absolute something that is
>purely a matter of fashion, and could change in another century for all you
>know. Right and wrong are attributes invented by humans, therefore faddish
>and transitory. Absolutes are the province of the cosmos, which has no
>morality and couldn't care less about "right" and "wrong."
This is utter and complete nonsense, and no one really believes it. Everyone
believes in right and wrong.
You claim you don't. But you do. You just don't *call* them that, because
you're terrified of absolutes - if there were absolutes, it might matter
what you did, and there might be some real responsibility involved in deciding
what you do and how you live your life.
But you still know that some things just aren't right. And slavery is
one of them.
>Belief in the "self-evident" is too often the mark of a closed mind.
And denial that there can be any is just as stupid. Do you believe
that these words you read were written by another life form? Why?
Because it's self-evident.
>When on the
>other hand you get into questions of morality, "right" and "wrong" are
>generally impossible to establish with proof.
True enough. So? Since it's impossible to achieve total success, shall
we give up entirely?
>You keep talking about your epistemological basis, but I can find no
>epistemological basis in what you're saying. All you are doing is reciting
>your opinions--which have no observable basis, epistemological or otherwise.
Your belief that he exists has no "observable" basis. He's telling you
what his premises are. Accept them or reject them as you will, but those
are premises, and he has at least tried to arrange to have premises from
which he can derive the rest of his views.
-s
Peter Seebach
>highway? Of course not.
You've never met a spammer. :)
>Why is it such a substantial leap then for a society
>to judge that drugs are bad for it, and pass laws to regulate drug use? This
>is not Nazism at work, but society attempting to grapple with problems.
Because driving the wrong way on a highway can hurt other people directly,
but there is no evidence at all that drug use is "bad for society". All
that seems to be bad is side effects of criminalization, and abuse - and
we've got more workable solutions to that in our ways of dealing with
alcohol.
BTW, as a side note, I've actually been in a car going around 50MPH on
the wrong side on a *divided* freeway. We had a really *REALLY* big
thunderstorm a year or so back, and there was 4-5 feet of water on the
highway. The cars in the back few rows started backing up, turning around,
and going back up the previous exit.
Arguably illegal, but necessary for society as a whole to function.
Peter Seebach
So? We wrote the history books, and that doesn't mean we were moral to
imprison all those Japanese people in America.
Morality has nothing to do with who writes the history books.
>>Were they moral until we got involved?
>Were we moral to drop the atom bombs on Japanese civilians?
Would we have been more right to take other actions which would have
resulted in hundreds of thousands more civilians dying?
Morality doesn't mean "my actions have no bad effects", it means "I am
doing the best I can".
>>You're wrong. Admit it, fix your worldview, and move on.
>Wrong in what way? By saying that the Nazis were wrong to exterminate Jews?
Wrong to say that a society's decisions are somehow "moral". Wrong to
say that, if society says "this is what we wish to do," that that is
somehow okay.
It's no more "right" for society to say "we will eliminate the use of
drugs" than it is to say "we will eliminate the use of the Torah". Individual
rights have to win.
>One person's individual right's are not worth preserving if many people will
>be damaged as a result.
If many people are damaged by someone's behavior, they had no right to it.
You're mistaking "things I want to do" for "rights".
I have a *RIGHT* to certain freedoms. I do not have a "right" to kill
people indiscriminately. Preventing me from doing so is in *NO WAY*
impinging on my rights, because I never had any such right to begin
with.
>You are taking the extreme stance that if individual
>rights are sacrificed, then we are inviting the Nazis in. That's not the
>case.
If individual rights are sacrificed, we have lost the game. We have lost
the thing that made it worth existing. We have taken away people's lives.
Life isn't just about breathing and heartbeat, you know.
>>You've got it backwards. Impinging on personal freedoms is wrong,
>therefore,
>>governments which do so are also wrong.
>I disagree. Governments have a right to regulate behavior.
No. People have a right not to have certain impositions made upon them.
(For instance, you have a "right" not to be arbitrarily killed.) Governments
are a way to try to enforce these rights.
The job of the government is to protect my right to own property from
some guy's desire to take it. It does not impinge on any of his rights
when it does so. It may regulate his behavior, but he has no right to
take my property without my permission, so no *rights* are being infringed
upon.
>>Untrue. There are no personal freedoms you need to give up for a healthy
>>society. The "freedoms" you're doubtless going to try to bring up were
>>never yours to begin with; even without "society", they were still wrong.
>In a perfect world made up of perfect people, we wouldn't need laws -- blah
>blah. I'm talking practicalities. We have to regulate some freedoms. Society
>would fall apart otherwise.
Perhaps - but I don't think there is any case in which the correct thing
to do is to try to deny people their *rights*. It's perfectly reasonable
to deny them some things *they* think they're entitled to - many people
think the world owes them a nice easy living - but you don't deny them
their *rights*.
>Now now -- you are damaging me by calling me names in a public forum,
>although your right to freedom of speech allows you to. My, what a collision
>we have here.
Mea culpa; I apologise. I get snippy sometimes.
>I'm talking idealism here. When I say that the people in power determine
>morality, all I mean is that they make the rules. Sure, we can argue about
>platonic forms and all that, but meanwhile Rome burns.
They make rules, yes. And sometimes, their rules are wrong, and that's
one of the reasons there have been revolutions.
>>Bullshit. They would have said "society has a right to pursue the ideal
>>of being Jew-free", just like you said. Oh, sure, *you* can see the
>>difference between drugs and Jews - but you wouldn't if the government were
>>telling you it was Jews that were behind your problems.
>Maybe they would have. Maybe the entire world might have, and then the Jews
>would have been completely eradicated. I have never once said the Nazis were
>right in their conduct -- merely that they held the reins of power.
Which is why it's a bad idea to say "oh, governments get to decide on
goals". Governments get to decide on goals as long as they don't deny
people their rights. As soon as they try to do that, it's time to either
turn them around or replace them.
>>You're too ready to accept the government's current scapegoat.
>????
Drugs, in this case. The government is pretending that "eliminating drugs"
will somehow solve much deeper problems, while ignoring the issues it needs
to work on.
>>Yup. And we were wrong, *EVEN THOUGH EVERYONE THOUGHT IT WAS REASONABLE
>>AT THE TIME*.
>Sure we were wrong. Did I say we were right? How many times do I have to say
>that individual rights have to be safeguarded? This doesn't mean that some
>individual rights can't be infringed upon or done away with, though. It's a
>matter of balance. It's not all or nothing, one way or the other.
The only safeguard that works is to never deny anyone a *right*. Not all
of the things that people want to do or have are their rights...
>>>Societies cannot function without rules; human nature is such that we need
>>>rules when we live together. Rules impinge upon our freedom. There's just
>no
>>>getting around it. It's a tradeoff.
>Ah, nice dismissal. When you're out of arguments, fade away, eh? I'd love to
>hear your theory of how an organized society can exist without rules.
It can't. But that doesn't mean there's any necessity that those rules
deny people their rights. You are arguing that, since we need some rules,
it's inevitable that some of those rules will impinge upon people's freedom
in a way that must inevitably deny them some of their rights. I don't
think this is proven.
JSpectre07
>>people squirm when it comes to debates on this subject. I
>>often enjoy asking the following question: "From where do you
>>draw the right to use force and prevent another human being
>>from using a mind altering substance in the privacy of their
>>own home?"
>
>While I support decriminalization of drugs, your question is an easy one to
>answer: We live not alone but in a complex society, and the rights of
>society to certain things often supersedes the rights of individuals.
The rights of society to certain things supercede nothing when the right in
question is behavior which hurts no one. Point out one way that me sitting in
my house smoking a joint while watching TV can in any way have any impact on
you. Tell me what about this is different from me sitting at home drinking beer
watching TV. In NO WAY does this impact you. My right to swing my arms ends at
your nose.
Living
>in a drug-free society is certainly a right that society can work towards at
>the detriment of individual rights. (Personally, I think the war on drugs is
>a waste of money and effort.)
WTF? What does this mean? I can't for the life of me figure out what the intent
of this confusing sentence is. Why isn't society working towards being
alchol-free? After all, the government's own studies prove that alcohol is more
dangerous than marijuana. If the war on drugs is a waste of money and effort,
why do you think society should infringe on individual rights to continue it?
>>I enjoy asking that question, because that instant in that
>>persons life may very well be the first moment they realize
>>that they indeed do NOT have the right to do that particular
>>thing.
>
>Instead ask them if the rights of the individual should be balanced with the
>rights of the group. Ask them if they will feel their rights are being
>violated if crack houses begin appearing on their street and they have no
>legal recourse to do anything about it.
This has nothing to do with the point at hand. The original poster said:
"From where do you
>>draw the right to use force and prevent another human being
>>from using a mind altering substance in the privacy of their
>>own home?"
A crack house is most definitely someone's swinging arm contacting my nose. It
drives down my property values and brings undesirables into my neighborhood.
Me, personally, sitting at home using a mind-altering substance hurts no one
and no thing.
Pat
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god.
It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
--Thomas Jefferson
JSpectre07
>individual freedoms? Yes. I just think that societies, like individuals,
>need to be wise when they consider passing such laws.
What society has the right to tell me, "You can't do this even though it
doesn't hurt anyone or anything"?
>Do any of us think we should have the freedom drive the wrong way on the
>highway? Of course not.
Because this "freedom" impinges on the safety and well-being of other people.
Unlike smoking marijuana, which impinges on the safety and well-being of no
one.
Why is it such a substantial leap then for a society
>to judge that drugs are bad for it, and pass laws to regulate drug use?
Because that's someone else making a decision that is MINE to make. My drug use
or lack thereof will impact no one but me. Therefore, the decision for me to
begin using drugs is MINE. If American society has been thought to have
"decided" drugs are bad for it, explain to me why alcohol remains legal. Even
better, explain the continued legality of a KNOWN lethal product, tobacco.
This
>is not Nazism at work, but society attempting to grapple with problems.
No, my friend, this is Nazism. Ask the millions jailed over the last 40 years
for the "crime" of enjoying a bong hit.
Pat
"Above all I hope that the education of the common people will be attended to
so they won't forget the basic principles of freedom."
--Thomas Jefferson
Alan
>individual freedoms? Yes. I just think that societies, like individuals,
>need to be wise when they consider passing such laws.
Well, fortunately the Constitution prohibits people like you from enacting
laws which curtail individual freedoms. The founders knew, from studying
history, that people could not be trusted to be "wise when they consider
passing such laws", so they wrote in protections to restrain law makers from
doing such. (ie. freedom of speech, both written and spoken, right to posses
arms, protection from search and seizure without a warrant, trial by jury,
protection from self-incrimination, etc)
>Do any of us think we should have the freedom drive the wrong way on the
>highway? Of course not. Why is it such a substantial leap then for a
society
>to judge that drugs are bad for it, and pass laws to regulate drug use?
This
>is not Nazism at work, but society attempting to grapple with problems.
Addressing point 1: Everyone knows that driving on the wrong side of the
road will probably result in injury and death. That's why people don't do
it. However, I've read in newspapers where some people did that to try and
kill themselves. No law would have prevented them from doing that.
Addressing point 2: The Constitution does not grant Congress the authority
to regulate what people ingest. If people want to injest poison (drugs,
booze, etc) then they have every right to do so. However, Congress DOES have
the power to regulat foreign commerce. So, they can legally regulate foreign
drug trafficking.
Clarification: I am not opposed to drug laws because I want people to take
drugs. I've never used drugs in my life. I don't smoke or even drink. What I
am opposed to is the slow and methodical elimination of our individual
rights under the guise of protecting the masses. For example, search,
seizure, and arrest without warrants or due process of law (that means the
cops confiscate your property before you even have a trial and are convicted
of anything). What kind of protection do you have from this if somebody who
doesn't like you snitches falsely to the police, or somebody tries to frame
you for something?
If you read your history you will discover that it was commonplace for
colonists (back in the 1600-1700's) to have their property confiscated, and
themselves arrested and detained, by the British for being suspected of
treason to the crown.
Alan
for
>the greater good of society. That's my position. Impinging upon some
>liberties doesn't mean that a society is equivalent to Nazi Germany.
Ban Franklin said, "Those who would give up their liberty for security
deserve neither." He was right then and he's still right. Unfortunately,
there are too many people who feel the way you do and don't realize the
ramifications of your willingness to give up something that is so sacred.
JSpectre07
>rights are sacrificed, then we are inviting the Nazis in. That's not the
>case.
Incorrect. To paraphrase a wise man, when a government loses respects for the
rights of the individual, the game is up. It is not enough for a government to
ask "What is good?" It must ask "What is good for all citizens?" If the
question is "What is good?", then the deaths of millions mean nothing, because
things are "good" for those that are left. A good example of this is Social
Security. It's "good" that the government outright robs people to provide a
pittance for those nearsighted souls who don't realize that someday they'll be
too old to work. This, however, is NOT good for all individuals, as I have more
intelligence than the common ant and plan to save for retirement. So, I will be
taxed my whole life for a service that will do me no good whatsoever, that
probably won't even be AROUND by the time I'm old enough to get some of that
hard-earned and easily-stolen money back. This is "good" for some, "bad" for
others. But, the others don't count. It's "good". An example of something that
is "good" for ALL citizens would be the interstate system of roads.
Facilitation of trade will have a positive impact on every single person in the
US, exceptions made for the sackcloth-and-ashes hermit set, in the form of job
opportunities and reduced prices for goods.
Long live individual accountability!
Pat
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe
the people with their own money."
--Alexis de Tocqueville:
JSpectre07
>don't go so far as to claim than individual rights are more important than
>the general good of the many
You would get along great in an ant colony.
>It's easy to make an argument that drug use is detrimental to society in a
>general sense, even if many individuals can use drugs respsonsibly.
It's easy to make an argument that Chicken McNuggets are detrimental to society
in a general sense as they can lead to obesity and health problems, even if
many individuals can eat them in moderation.
>If you agree with that, then it
>simply becomes a matter of judgement -- can we become drug-free? If yes,
>it's probably worth pursuing. If no, then we make rules that minimize the
>impact of drugs on our society.
The problem here, Mark, is that the rule that has been made, i.e. outright and
utter prohibition on drugs, is a rule with ample historical evidence of
complete and total failure. No empire in history has ever said "You are not
allowed to do this enjoyable thing" and had it work. It is impossible. It has
never worked, it will never work. For Christ's sake, people hid Jews from the
NAZIS.
>Nah -- better to regulate weapons.
Uh oh, I'm starting to think you ARE a commie.
>How do you propose that the government pick out the individuals who can use
>drugs responsibly and not wreck their lives?
>
"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into
error."
--Judge Robert H. Jackson
>Society can decide that the potential misuse of some freedoms is not worth
>their being allowed.
>
I have yet to hear anyone give me a suitable answer to the possibility of me
misusing a drug in my own home that affects anyone but me.
>Some freedoms that can be misused and as a result hurt others are not worth
>protecting. If no one's around, why shouldn't I have the freedom to run a
>red-light, speed, drive on the wrong side of the road? Why do I need to keep
>my house in a state of repair? Why shouldn't I be allowed to raise tigers in
my backyard?
These are all "freedoms" that have the potential to harm other people.
>Why can't we look at the big picture?
>
What I am and am not allowed to legally do IS the big picture to me.
>Only the evidence that people on drugs or drunk don't drive safely.
How do you justify the dichotomy of alcohol's legality and drugs' illegality if
you've just mentioned that BOTH substances make you unfit to drive?
Pat
"You may think your actions are meaningless and that they won't help, but that
is no excuse, you must still act."
--Gandhi
Alan
>important than group rights when we live in an organized society. It's
>always a question of balancing the two. Societies have a right to regulate
>the behavior of their members for the betterment of the common good.
>Obviously, some pretty rigid checks have to be in place to secure important
>individual rights, but by the same token, individuals have to cede some
>rights to further the betterment of the group.
Uh, no it's not naive. It is the foundation on which our "free" society is
built upon. An "organized society" is something you made up. I've noticed
you make up alot of things. This is a nation of individuals. I have the
right, authority, and power to participate, or to not participate in our
society. My individual freedom allows me to do that. The government did not
give me my rights and neither did society. I was born with them.
The instant you take the masses and infringe upon the right of one person,
you've infrigned upon the right of everyone. I don't have to cede shit
unless I chose to do so. Nobody has the authority to make me do otherwise.
My individual rights are not up for debate, discussion, ananlysis, or
anything like that. I have them, period. If you try to take them from me
then you might experience some very unfortunate consequences.
>I never claimed "group rights" were something in the Constitution. I was
>using it to describe the neccessity of balancing the needs of the many
>against the wishes of the individual. It's a concept, not a law.
I didn't accuse you of claiming that "group right" were in the Constitution.
I stated that there is no such thing. You made it up. Like I stated before,
my individual rights are not up for debate, discussion, ananlysis, or
anything like that. I have them, period.
Mark Asher
<19981212220259...@ng-bw1.aol.com>...
>>Do I think that societies have the right to make laws that curtail
>>individual freedoms? Yes. I just think that societies, like individuals,
>>need to be wise when they consider passing such laws.
>
>doesn't hurt anyone or anything"?
The same society that has the right to say "You can't do this because we
know that in the long run such behavior will be detrimental to society."
Who says drug use doesn't hurt anyone or anything? Can you promise me that
drug users are not going to turn violent? Can you peomise me that they will
not steal to support their habit? Can you promise me that drug users can
take drugs and live up to their responsibilities to their families and
employers all the time?
>>Do any of us think we should have the freedom drive the wrong way on the
>>highway? Of course not.
>
>Because this "freedom" impinges on the safety and well-being of other
people.
>Unlike smoking marijuana, which impinges on the safety and well-being of no
>one.
What about heroin and crack? What about crystal meth? Forget pot. Should any
and all drugs be legalized?
> Why is it such a substantial leap then for a society
>>to judge that drugs are bad for it, and pass laws to regulate drug use?
>
>Because that's someone else making a decision that is MINE to make. My drug
use
>or lack thereof will impact no one but me.
That's not true. We see the impact of drug use all the time in our society.
Zoom out and look at the big picture. When you allow certain types of
behavior, there are consequences. That's what you look at when you decide to
regulate behavior or not -- is protecting this individual freedom worth the
probable price we will pay as a society?
>Therefore, the decision for me to
>begin using drugs is MINE.
But if it's illegal, it isn't your decision anymore, if abiding by the rules
of society is important to you.
>If American society has been thought to have
>"decided" drugs are bad for it, explain to me why alcohol remains legal.
Even
>better, explain the continued legality of a KNOWN lethal product, tobacco.
Lots of money. The knowledge that they are ingrained in our society. That
doesn't make it right.
Why can't a society say, "Alcohol and tobacco are bad, but we realize that
they are too big a part of our culture so banning them is a bad idea, but
drugs just have a toehold so banning them may be effective"?
>This
>>is not Nazism at work, but society attempting to grapple with problems.
>
>No, my friend, this is Nazism. Ask the millions jailed over the last 40
years
>for the "crime" of enjoying a bong hit.
Nah, it's nowhere near Nazism. Those bong hits were illegal and those people
made a conscious choice to break the law.
But I agree that pot should be decriminalized. Other drugs are a different
story perhaps.
Mark Asher
Mark Asher
Alan wrote in message <78Gc2.1963$6u4....@news.rdc2.occa.home.com>...
>>Do I think that societies have the right to make laws that curtail
>>individual freedoms? Yes. I just think that societies, like individuals,
>>need to be wise when they consider passing such laws.
>
>
>laws which curtail individual freedoms.
That's why there are no residential zoning laws, no such things as
stoplights, I can say whatever I want about someone whether it's true or
not, I can build an atom bomb in my basement, etc.
>The founders knew, from studying
>history, that people could not be trusted to be "wise when they consider
>passing such laws", so they wrote in protections to restrain law makers
from
>doing such. (ie. freedom of speech, both written and spoken, right to
posses
>arms, protection from search and seizure without a warrant, trial by jury,
>protection from self-incrimination, etc)
How many times do I have to say that individual rights should be safeguarded
before anyone gives me credit for saying it?
>>Do any of us think we should have the freedom drive the wrong way on the
>>highway? Of course not. Why is it such a substantial leap then for a
>society
>>to judge that drugs are bad for it, and pass laws to regulate drug use?
>This
>>is not Nazism at work, but society attempting to grapple with problems.
>
>Addressing point 1: Everyone knows that driving on the wrong side of the
>road will probably result in injury and death. That's why people don't do
>it. However, I've read in newspapers where some people did that to try and
>kill themselves. No law would have prevented them from doing that.
The point of course is that we all agree that a law that curtails our
freedom to drive on either side of the road is a good thing. That's not a
freedom that is worth protecting.
>Addressing point 2: The Constitution does not grant Congress the authority
>to regulate what people ingest. If people want to injest poison (drugs,
>booze, etc) then they have every right to do so.
There are laws against suicide.
>However, Congress DOES have
>the power to regulat foreign commerce. So, they can legally regulate
foreign
>drug trafficking.
Obviously, Congress has much more power than you are willing to grant, since
pot is illegal and it's hardly a foreign substance anymore.
>Clarification: I am not opposed to drug laws because I want people to take
>drugs. I've never used drugs in my life. I don't smoke or even drink. What
I
>am opposed to is the slow and methodical elimination of our individual
>rights under the guise of protecting the masses. For example, search,
>seizure, and arrest without warrants or due process of law (that means the
>cops confiscate your property before you even have a trial and are
convicted
>of anything). What kind of protection do you have from this if somebody who
>doesn't like you snitches falsely to the police, or somebody tries to frame
>you for something?
I agree. But it doesn't really refute the concept of a society having the
right to regulate its members.
Mark Asher
Mark Asher
Of course, he was speaking in absolutes and I was doing anything but that.
Imagine a society where the members retain many individual freedoms, but not
all. Isn't that possible? Why is it always complete individual freedom or
none?
Mark Asher
Mark Asher
JSpectre07 wrote in message
<19981212221205...@ng-bw1.aol.com>...
>>You are taking the extreme stance that if individual
>>rights are sacrificed, then we are inviting the Nazis in. That's not the
>>case.
>
>Incorrect. To paraphrase a wise man, when a government loses respects for
the
>rights of the individual, the game is up.
Sorry, but governments can respect some rights and decide others are
contrary to the good of society.
>It is not enough for a government to
>ask "What is good?" It must ask "What is good for all citizens?" If the
>question is "What is good?", then the deaths of millions mean nothing,
because
>things are "good" for those that are left. A good example of this is Social
>Security.
Social Security is a good concept that has problems in its execution right
now. It's a response to the problem of people not saving for retirement. The
government forces them to in a way. I personally think it's a good idea for
the government to force people to do this, although the manner in which it
is handled is certainly debatable.
It's the difference between looking at individuals and looking at society as
a whole. When you step back, you see that a large segment of society won't
plan for their old age. That's much more than a bunch of individual
problems -- it's a societal problem. Therefore a society-wide solution is
appropriate.
snip
>Long live individual accountability!
Long live compassion and understanding of our fellow citizens' weaknesses,
and the knowledge that we're in this together, not alone.
Mark Asher
Mark Asher
JSpectre07 wrote in message
<19981212222427...@ng-bw1.aol.com>...
>>I just
>>don't go so far as to claim than individual rights are more important than
>>the general good of the many
>
>You would get along great in an ant colony.
Ants are very successful societies.
>>It's easy to make an argument that drug use is detrimental to society in a
>>general sense, even if many individuals can use drugs respsonsibly.
>
>It's easy to make an argument that Chicken McNuggets are detrimental to
society
>in a general sense as they can lead to obesity and health problems, even if
>many individuals can eat them in moderation.
Sure. What's your point? Oh I get it -- if I don't agree with regulating
every example you come up with, then it's invalid to regulate anything.
Zzzzzz.
>>If you agree with that, then it
>>simply becomes a matter of judgement -- can we become drug-free? If yes,
>>it's probably worth pursuing. If no, then we make rules that minimize the
>>impact of drugs on our society.
>
>The problem here, Mark, is that the rule that has been made, i.e. outright
and
>utter prohibition on drugs, is a rule with ample historical evidence of
>complete and total failure. No empire in history has ever said "You are not
>allowed to do this enjoyable thing" and had it work. It is impossible. It
has
>never worked, it will never work. For Christ's sake, people hid Jews from
the
>NAZIS.
That's why I'd like to see drugs decriminalized. But that doesn't refute the
idea that society has a right to regulate its members.
>>Society can decide that the potential misuse of some freedoms is not worth
>>their being allowed.
>>
>
>I have yet to hear anyone give me a suitable answer to the possibility of
me
>misusing a drug in my own home that affects anyone but me.
How about "Because it's too much trouble to pass a law that allows you and
not others to use drugs in your home because you've proven yourself
responsible, but others haven't."
>>Some freedoms that can be misused and as a result hurt others are not
worth
>>protecting. If no one's around, why shouldn't I have the freedom to run a
>>red-light, speed, drive on the wrong side of the road? Why do I need to
keep
>>my house in a state of repair? Why shouldn't I be allowed to raise tigers
in
>my backyard?
>
>These are all "freedoms" that have the potential to harm other people.
Drug use is harmful to society? Yes or no? If yes, why is it a freedom worth
preserving?
>>Why can't we look at the big picture?
>>
>What I am and am not allowed to legally do IS the big picture to me.
That's the small picture, actually, even if it's the only one you care
about.
>>Only the evidence that people on drugs or drunk don't drive safely.
>
>How do you justify the dichotomy of alcohol's legality and drugs'
illegality if
>you've just mentioned that BOTH substances make you unfit to drive?
I don't. It's a matter of practicality, not morality. Alcohol is here to
stay, but drugs are still a fringe element. A ban on drugs may contain drug
use to a small percentage of society. Legalizing drugs may cause their usage
to expand. Do I need any more reason than that?
Mark Asher
Ben Flieger
Mark Asher wrote in message <36736...@news.primary.net>...
>>Long live individual accountability!
>
>
>Long live compassion and understanding of our fellow citizens'
weaknesses,
>and the knowledge that we're in this together, not alone.
Mark, remember, you aren't talking to mature intelligent adults.
You are talking to libertarians.
Ben Flieger
Alan wrote in message ...
>>Not every scrap of personal liberty is sacrosant. Some can be
sacrificed
>for
>>the greater good of society. That's my position. Impinging upon some
>>liberties doesn't mean that a society is equivalent to Nazi Germany.
>
>Ban Franklin said, "Those who would give up their liberty for
security
>deserve neither."
Franklin was skilled at creating propaganda and at writing pithy
little witticisms.
No taxation without representation, eh?(Granted, Adams coined that,
but I'm pretty sure Franklin endorsed it, if not repeated it)
Perhaps the greatest propaganda in the history of the world. I am in
awe of those men, Hitler's buddies can't hold a candle to their work.
Ben Flieger
Peter Seebach wrote in message ...
>Roark <ro...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>weapons and technology to make their their environment easier to
deal
>>with (although nukes have seemingly made further weapons development
>>superfluous).
>
>Nonsense! Nukes have made it clear that weapons development needs to
find
>other paths.
Really? Then how come we haven't? The base for your assault rifle and
friends came out two years after the Enola Gay dropped the world's
biggest firecracker on Hiroshima. Your F-22 is a Me-262 with really
tiny V2s on it. The Panther and the M1A2 are cousins. Weapons
technology has stangnated.
The only major aspect in which the way we make war has changed is the
development of radar evading vehicles. We'll see if these can be
counteracted effectively, if not, they offer a return to the early
1940's air strike, with no warning before the bombs start falling.
Nuclear weapons have saved so many millions of lives it's a shame
people decry them.
MAD is the reason why the US has had a peaceful half century. Korea,
Vietnam, Iraq. I don't think all three of those combined leave us
killed 100,000 American soldiers. If they did(and I'd bet good money
they didn't), the latter half of the 19th century had cleared that
mark thrice over by it's 15th year. And that's not counting
Confederates as US dead.
Mark Asher
>In article <36730...@news.primary.net>, ma...@cdmnet.com says...
>
>> Even free speech is regulated.
>
>"Societal rights advocates" always rely on the arguments that government
>is right and that its behavioral precedents rationalize any legislation
>they happen to agree with.
Government is often wrong, though. Individuals are often wrong also.
>You like to argue about limiting the rights of the individual for the
>benefit of society and the underprivileged ... yet ... you don't seem to
>have any qualms about putting yourself in positions of authority or high
>visibility.
What position of authority have I put myself in? What high visibility?
Because I sign my real name to posts instead of a 'nym? BTW, I'm not arguing
that the rights of individuals *should* be limited, just recognizing that
sometimes individual rights are less important than group rights. Surely you
agree that yelling "Fire" in a theatre is not an individual right we should
protect? If so, then we are in agreement in general. It's just the specifics
we differ on.
>Survey says... Democrat?
Not a card carrying one, but I'd have trouble voting Republican. I take it
you're the opposite?
>> Mark Asher
Alan
>stoplights, I can say whatever I want about someone whether it's true or
>not, I can build an atom bomb in my basement, etc.
You can say whatever you want to about somebody. But, if you cause that
person grief and/or financial damages because you've tarnished that person's
reputation, and they can prove it, then you can be sued for damages. If you
know how to build an atom bomb in your basement, how come you haven't done
it? You haven't done it, not because it is illegal. You haven't done it
because it would be foolish.
>How many times do I have to say that individual rights should be
safeguarded
>before anyone gives me credit for saying it?
Oh, I thought you were saying we should give up some of our rights for the
good of society. Maybe that was somebody else who said that.
>>Addressing point 1: Everyone knows that driving on the wrong side of the
>>road will probably result in injury and death. That's why people don't do
>>it. However, I've read in newspapers where some people did that to try and
>>kill themselves. No law would have prevented them from doing that.
>
>The point of course is that we all agree that a law that curtails our
>freedom to drive on either side of the road is a good thing. That's not a
>freedom that is worth protecting.
My point, which you missed entirely, is that people don't drive on the wrong
side of the road because they don't want to be injured or killed. Not
because it is illegal.
>>Addressing point 2: The Constitution does not grant Congress the authority
>>to regulate what people ingest. If people want to injest poison (drugs,
>>booze, etc) then they have every right to do so.
>
>There are laws against suicide.
So, I guess if somebody breaks that law, by commiting suicide, then they
should be thrown in jail. You really need to think things through a little
more thoroughly.
>Obviously, Congress has much more power than you are willing to grant,
since
>pot is illegal and it's hardly a foreign substance anymore.
Police officers routinely violate Consitutional protections, something they
swear to uphold while in training at the police academy, on a daily basis.
As long as they are willing to do that then Congress can pass any law they
want as long as they have robots with guns to enforce them. A large portion
of the resources of law enforcement are dedicated to confiscation of
property and collection of revenue for the government.
>I agree. But it doesn't really refute the concept of a society having the
>right to regulate its members.
Society has no "right to regulate" it's members. That premise is something
you made up. Murder, assault, theft, and vandalism do not have to be
"against the law" in order for them to be wrong. Even if they were not
illegal by law, you could still sue somebody for damages resulting from
those acts. Right and wrong are not determined by what Congress says is
right and wrong through legislation.
Alan
not
>all. Isn't that possible? Why is it always complete individual freedom or
>none?
It is not possible because only allowing some individual freedom puts
impositions on many. Complete individual freedom puts an imposition on
nobody.
Alan
>little witticisms.
>No taxation without representation, eh?(Granted, Adams coined that,
>but I'm pretty sure Franklin endorsed it, if not repeated it)
>
>Perhaps the greatest propaganda in the history of the world. I am in
>awe of those men, Hitler's buddies can't hold a candle to their work.
The objective of propoganda is to persuade people to your way of thinking
while gambling that they will be too lazy to research the facts themselves.
They will simply "take your word for it." If one does the research one will
discover that Ben Franklin's statement has been proven throughout history.
Any society, in which the members were not willing to defend their life,
liberty, and property from those who would take it from them without their
consent, do not deserve to have those things. Their inaction itself
consitutes an endorsement of that policy. If a thief steals something from
you and you do nothing about it (object to the theft, stop him, report it to
the police) then you have encouraged that type of activity to continue.
To compare Hitler with Franklin is absurd.
Alan
worth
>preserving?
Preserving the "freedom to do drugs" is missing the whole point. It's not
about doing drugs. You keep harping on that. You have to get OFF that. It's
about protecting a person's right to life, liberty, and property. It's about
protection from search and seizure without warrants and/or due process of
law. It's about turning your friends and neighbors into snitches for the
police. It's about using hemp for medical puposes, clothing, paper, fuel,
etc. Did you know the Constitution was written on hemp? Why? Because hemp is
so durable. Hemp is one of the most weather resistant crops that we know of.
If you were REALLY concerned about what is harmful to society then you'd be
talking about booze, tobacco products, fast food, internal combustion
engines, etc. Things that do far more damage than drugs ever will. But,
you've had the message "drugs are bad" hammered into your brain by
television for so many years that it's blocked your ability to think
rationally. All your arguments are the same old knee-jerk responses that
television commentators have been spewing out their orafices for years. Did
you ever stop to think that you are the victim of a carefully orchestrated
propaganda campaign by the mainstream media and educational institutes?
A wise man once said, "The brainwashed never wonder."
Alan
>sometimes individual rights are less important than group rights. Surely
you
>agree that yelling "Fire" in a theatre is not an individual right we should
>protect? If so, then we are in agreement in general. It's just the
specifics
>we differ on.
Fortunately, you can recognize anything you want til the sun burns out and
you don't have the power to impose your enlightenment on the rest of us.
Thank God for individual rights.
Yelling "fire" in a theater would still be wrong even if it weren't against
the law. That is not the sort of speech that the founders had in mind to
protect. They were more concerned about people being persecuted for exposing
corruption in government or speaking in public gatherings. It would most
certainly be a triable offense for disturbing the peace, intent to mislead
through deception, and, most likely, causing harm to victims of trampling,
which did happen in real life.
Another example is that I can't stand outside my house at 2am and scream
obscenities as loud as I can. Well, I could. But, the neighbors would be
able to sue me for damages. So, that would prevent me from doing such a
thing. Aside from the fact that I would never do it to begin with and
neither would most people. It's just a hypothetical. But, a law doesn't need
to be in effect to prevent me from doing that. It would be wrong in either
case.
Alan
>now. It's a response to the problem of people not saving for retirement.
The
>government forces them to in a way. I personally think it's a good idea for
>the government to force people to do this, although the manner in which it
>is handled is certainly debatable.
So, it's the government's responsibility to save people from their own
irresponsibility? I don't recall seeing that as one of the powers and duties
of government listed in the Constitution. Socialist Security is nothing but
a comminust program...everybody puts into the pot and then divides it up
equally later. In the end people get about a 1% return on their "investment"
into SS. While if they had invested it into some retirement program in the
free market, they would get about a 20% return. Heck, even if they invested
in precious metals (like gold) they'd STILL be better off. Gee, no wonder so
many elderly people are poor slobs living in poverty. I guess they got what
they voted for.
You personally think it's a good idea for the government to force people...?
I read about alot of governments who forced people...into gas chambers,
gulags, slave labor camps, indoctrination centers, medical experiments,
atomic fallout, detention centers, dungeons, torture chambers, etc. In fact,
in all of history, governments have murdered more people than all the wars,
plagues, and criminals combined.
You REALLY need to stop sucking the tit of your government. It is not your
mommy and daddy. It is not your God. It does not decide what is right and
wrong for you. It does not wipe your ass and blow your nose. You need to
become a self-sufficient, independent, responsible human being and do the
right things in life.
>a whole. When you step back, you see that a large segment of society won't
>plan for their old age. That's much more than a bunch of individual
>problems -- it's a societal problem. Therefore a society-wide solution is
>appropriate.
I guess you were appointed "savior of the irresponsible", huh. Well, I'm not
concerned with how others squander their earnings and piss away their future
and I really resent being forced to bail them out with my tax dollars. I'm
concerned about MY future and the future of MY family, which is MY
responsibilty and mine alone. It is MY responsibility, not the government's
and not society's, to make sure that MY family becomes upstanding members of
the human race and cause no harm or imposition to others in the process.
NOW, if some people befall unfortunate circumstances beyond their control
(weather disaster, drunk driver, earthquake, etc.), then I will gladly offer
my services (labor and financial) to help those people who ask for it. That
is called private charity. However, if the government says, "well, these
people need your help because they were irresponsible, and you're gonna help
them wether or not you want to", then they have usurped my individual
liberty and I will despise them for it and despise those who voted for such
policies.
Krud
>
>Who says drug use doesn't hurt anyone or anything? Can you promise me that
>drug users are not going to turn violent? Can you peomise me that they will
>not steal to support their habit? Can you promise me that drug users can
>take drugs and live up to their responsibilities to their families and
>employers all the time?
The issue is not whether drugs are a bad thing, it's that prohibition does not
work. Plus it creates a black market so in essence it's actually promoting
crime. One of the biggest businesses during the gangster era was bootlegging.
Now it's drugs. We already know that alcohol and tobaco are bad things but
they are legal because of one reason - money. There is so much money behind
the two industries that it's literally imposible to make them illegal.
-Krud
Mark Asher
>The issue is not whether drugs are a bad thing, it's that prohibition does
not
>work. Plus it creates a black market so in essence it's actually promoting
>crime. One of the biggest businesses during the gangster era was
bootlegging.
>Now it's drugs. We already know that alcohol and tobaco are bad things
but
>they are legal because of one reason - money. There is so much money
behind
>the two industries that it's literally imposible to make them illegal.
That's why I've said repeatedly that I'm in favor of decriminalization. <g>
The effectiveness of bans on drugs has little to do with the concept of
whether society has the right to regulate its members, which is the issue at
hand.
Mark Asher
Lord Mark
A democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch.
Alan wrote:
> No, I'm not going to give you a civics lesson on the differences. It's your
> responsiblity to research it and find out on your own.
>
--
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if
the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to
other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one
citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself
cannot do without committing a crime.
Have Gun Will Travel
Wire Pali...@uswest.net
Lord Mark
certain unalienable rights, among them are life, liberty and property.
Governments were instituted among men to protect these rights, not to grant
them. I also believe that when ever governments become oppressive upon these
ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
Courageous wrote:
> WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IN?????
Mark Asher
>>How many times do I have to say that individual rights should be
>safeguarded
>>before anyone gives me credit for saying it?
>
>Oh, I thought you were saying we should give up some of our rights for the
>good of society. Maybe that was somebody else who said that.
What I've said is that not every single individual right is sacrosant, but
that indeed some are and need to be safeguarded. It's a middle-ground
approach that balances the needs of the group against the rights of the
individual, and makes concessions to both sides.
Apparently for libertarians, there is no middle ground. It's all or nothing.
>>The point of course is that we all agree that a law that curtails our
>>freedom to drive on either side of the road is a good thing. That's not a
>>freedom that is worth protecting.
>
>My point, which you missed entirely, is that people don't drive on the
wrong
>side of the road because they don't want to be injured or killed. Not
>because it is illegal.
Self-preservation is a powerful motivational force. How many people would
run red lights and speed if they knew they wouldn't get ticketed? These are
laws that have chipped away at your personal freedom, yet I doubt you would
argue that they are bad.
>>>Addressing point 2: The Constitution does not grant Congress the
authority
>>>to regulate what people ingest. If people want to injest poison (drugs,
>>>booze, etc) then they have every right to do so.
>>
>>There are laws against suicide.
>
>So, I guess if somebody breaks that law, by commiting suicide, then they
>should be thrown in jail. You really need to think things through a little
>more thoroughly.
Don't be an idiot. The law is on the books so the police have a right to
intercede to stop suicide attempts and so the courts can order treatment for
people who attempt suicide and fail. I was just pointing out that your
rather silly example of having complete legal freedom to ingest whatever you
want isn't really so.
>>Obviously, Congress has much more power than you are willing to grant,
>since
>>pot is illegal and it's hardly a foreign substance anymore.
>
>Police officers routinely violate Consitutional protections, something they
>swear to uphold while in training at the police academy, on a daily basis.
This is beside the point.
>As long as they are willing to do that then Congress can pass any law they
>want as long as they have robots with guns to enforce them. A large portion
>of the resources of law enforcement are dedicated to confiscation of
>property and collection of revenue for the government.
The point that you are avoiding is that these restrictive laws have not been
ruled unconstitutional by the courts. These freedoms you claim have been
infringed upon by the state. You can argue that it's wrong, but it's
certainly not unconstitutional. You're at a point where you either need to
work for legislation that will change things or overthrow the government.
>>I agree. But it doesn't really refute the concept of a society having the
>>right to regulate its members.
>
>Society has no "right to regulate" it's members. That premise is something
>you made up. Murder, assault, theft, and vandalism do not have to be
>"against the law" in order for them to be wrong.
Ok. Society has the right to pass laws that regulate its members. Happy for
that fine distinction?
>Even if they were not
>illegal by law, you could still sue somebody for damages resulting from
>those acts. Right and wrong are not determined by what Congress says is
>right and wrong through legislation.
When it comes to your interaction as an individual with the state, right and
wrong is determined by the state.
Mark Asher
Mark Asher
>So, it's the government's responsibility to save people from their own
>irresponsibility?
I wouldn't say it's their responsibility, but the laws were signed by the
President and passed by the elected members of Congress, so it is the
government's responsibility to collect SS revenue and administer the
program.
>I don't recall seeing that as one of the powers and duties
>of government listed in the Constitution.
There's probably a lot of legislation that has been passed that you don't
see in the Constitution. What's your point?
>Socialist Security is nothing but
>a comminust program...everybody puts into the pot and then divides it up
>equally later.
Why is it that any program that is designed to promote the general good and
which requires tax revenue is called communism? How do you expect anyone to
take you seriously?
>In the end people get about a 1% return on their "investment"
>into SS. While if they had invested it into some retirement program in the
>free market, they would get about a 20% return. Heck, even if they invested
>in precious metals (like gold) they'd STILL be better off. Gee, no wonder
so
>many elderly people are poor slobs living in poverty. I guess they got what
>they voted for.
No doubt the program needs some changes, but the basic concept is sound --
force people to save for retirement.
>You personally think it's a good idea for the government to force
people...?
>I read about alot of governments who forced people...into gas chambers,
>gulags, slave labor camps, indoctrination centers, medical experiments,
>atomic fallout, detention centers, dungeons, torture chambers, etc. In
fact,
>in all of history, governments have murdered more people than all the wars,
>plagues, and criminals combined.
Yes, I agree -- forcing people to save for retirement is tantamount to
gassing them. Do you even read what you write?
>You REALLY need to stop sucking the tit of your government. It is not your
>mommy and daddy. It is not your God. It does not decide what is right and
>wrong for you. It does not wipe your ass and blow your nose. You need to
>become a self-sufficient, independent, responsible human being and do the
>right things in life.
Ah. I see. You have divined my station in life based on my comments. Yes, I
am a street person living off the largesse of the state. I take my food
stamps and buy shrimp and lobster. I make out like gangbusters at election
time as the Democrats buy my vote and also provide me with unlimited taxi
service. I visit the library, a socialist institution that is unfairly
funded by those progressive taxes that irritate you, and use their computers
to post these messages. I laugh at people like you who don't live as well as
I yet who are forced to continue to support me. If only the poor would be
happy with bread and water and those capital gains taxes could be squeaked
through, you could afford that new golf cart!
>NOW, if some people befall unfortunate circumstances beyond their control
>(weather disaster, drunk driver, earthquake, etc.), then I will gladly
offer
>my services (labor and financial) to help those people who ask for it. That
>is called private charity. However, if the government says, "well, these
>people need your help because they were irresponsible, and you're gonna
help
>them wether or not you want to", then they have usurped my individual
>liberty and I will despise them for it and despise those who voted for such
>policies.
How Christian of you. I suppose you go to one of those churches that
reassures you that Christ really wanted you to amass a large personal
fortune and ignore the poor.
Someday, through no fault of your own, you may need a helping hand. Who
would you want to be there? Someone who shares your sentiments?
Mark Asher
Neil Harrington
>Sorry, you lose. Slavery was *wrong*. It doesn't matter that it used
>to be fashionable. It was a wrong thing. It was an abomination against
>the fundemental and inalienable rights of all humanity.
No. It is wrong today only because today's morality is different. It was not
wrong when it was openly, legally, and universally practiced, which, as I've
noted, was the case for thousands of years.
>Moral values are not "of today". They are "of reality".
That's gibberish.
Morality changes, and has always changed, sometimes from century to century,
sometimes from generation to generation. There isn't any moral "reality"
that's set in cement as you seem to believe.
You seem like the blind man who feels an elephant's leg and decides he knows
exactly what an elephant is like: a tree trunk. The whole truth is much
larger than your personal experience and belief system, hard as that may be
for you to accept.
>>A few hundred years ago it
>>was perfectly normal, natural, and proper, virtually no one objected to
it,
>>and you wouldn't have either.
>
>Oh, of course. You're right. There were no abolitionists.
Abolitionists don't go very far back in time. Slavery has existed all over
the world for all of recorded history, and probably for thousands of years
before that, since we know it was practiced by stone-age cultures in
relatively recent times. Now, care to write down a list of all the known
abolitionists of, say, 500 years ago? (Hint: you won't need much paper; a
matchbook cover should leave you room to spare.)
>>You are trying to apply current
>>standards--which have existed for only the tick of a clock in the time
frame
>>of human existence--to all the social history that preceded it.
>
>No, he is trying to apply moral standards to behavior, which is perfectly
>reasonable.
Of course it's perfectly reasonable to apply moral standards to behavior,
since that is what moral standards are for in the first place. What is *not*
reasonable is to apply the moral standards of today to the behavior of a
different time.
>>You are using the term "wrong" to describe as an absolute something that
is
>>purely a matter of fashion, and could change in another century for all
you
>>know. Right and wrong are attributes invented by humans, therefore faddish
>>and transitory. Absolutes are the province of the cosmos, which has no
>>morality and couldn't care less about "right" and "wrong."
>
>This is utter and complete nonsense, and no one really believes it.
Everyone
>believes in right and wrong.
A non sequitur. Believing in right and wrong has nothing to do with the fact
that they are human value judgments dependent on time, place, and
contemporary public opinion and sensibilities.
>You claim you don't.
I have never made any such claim. Please re-read my post and point out
whatever part you think indicates, hints, suggests, or implies that I don't
believe in right and wrong.
>But you do.
Of course I do.
>You just don't *call* them that,
I do call them that.
>because you're terrified of absolutes -
It sounds rather as though you are terrified that there may *not* be all
those absolutes, neatly provided for your personal guidance.
>if there were absolutes, it might matter
>what you did, and there might be some real responsibility involved in
deciding
>what you do and how you live your life.
I accept that responsibility without the need to kid myself about there
being eternal moral absolutes.
Since you do believe in all these moral absolutes, and evidently think you
know exactly what is moral and what is not, I suppose most or all questions
of right and wrong must be trivially easy for you.
Now I know you have been courageous and outspoken enough to come out
strongly against slavery on moral grounds, which is very nice, though about
130 years too late to have much bearing on that question as a moral issue.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to straighten out the rest of us on some
currently troubling moral questions which may be a tad more difficult:
1. Abortion. Is it moral (defending the woman's right to make decisions
about her own body) or immoral (depriving the helpless unborn child of its
right to life)?
2. Homosexual activity. Moral (private relationship between consenting
adults) or immoral (Biblical and other religious, legal, and traditional
injunctions against it)?
3. Impeachment of a president who has committed perjury, subornation of
perjury, and obstruction of justice, but whom most citizens still approve of
and do not want to see impeached. Such impeachment moral or immoral?
When you have earned the gratitude of the country by settling these pesky
moral issues, it would be nice also if you would support your decisions with
some kind of logic, rationale, proof, or evidence. Or absent those, explain
whether you've arrived at your judgements via some sort of divine guidance,
"epistemological basis," or whatever method you use.
In other words, don't just say something is wrong because you say it's
wrong, or moral because you say it's moral, and must be so for all time.
Neil Harrington
Neil Harrington
>>Why is it such a substantial leap then for a society
>>to judge that drugs are bad for it, and pass laws to regulate drug use?
This
>>is not Nazism at work, but society attempting to grapple with problems.
>
>Because driving the wrong way on a highway can hurt other people directly,
>but there is no evidence at all that drug use is "bad for society".
Oh, on the contrary.
I worked in a state psychiatric hospital for 30 years. In the fifties and
early sixties I worked on the male admission ward, and my best recollection
is that in ten years I saw five or six patients admitted for drug
addiction--that's *all* the male admissions for drug abuse over that period,
in a hospital with a patient population over 3,000. There just wasn't any
serious national drug problem at that time.
Then came the protest movement, the drug "counter-culture," and all the
associated stuff. Drug abuse admissions skyrocketed, so much that by the
early seventies a separate unit (about ten wards, one of the largest on the
hospital campus) had to be set aside for drug admissions. Where I had seen
five or six drug admissions in ten years, they now got that many in on a
typical day, and sometimes that many before lunch.
These were people typically in their twenties whose lives were thoroughly
screwed up by drug use. Not just the addiction problem itself, but their
thinking, their value systems, their way of seeing themselves, their way of
relating to others, their life goals--all these were distorted, ruined,
wasted, in many cases irreparably. Drug addicts in general end up as the
most rotten specimens of humanity you will ever meet in this world. And
there's no reason to suppose they were that way before they got on drugs.
Yes, that sort of drug use was and is *very* bad for society.
>All
>that seems to be bad is side effects of criminalization,
You ignore the fact that such drug use only became criminalized in the first
place because it was so destructive. Drugs were freely and legally available
at the beginning of the century. The Harrison Narcotics Act only came along
in 1912, if my recollection is correct.
>and abuse - and
>we've got more workable solutions to that in our ways of dealing with
>alcohol.
Then you ought to present your "more workable solutions" to the
professionals who work with drug addicts every day, because I can tell you
they're not having much success with existing methods and they've been
working on the problem for quite some time now.
Neil Harrington
Peter Seebach
>Who says drug use doesn't hurt anyone or anything?
It's definitional; if it hurt someone, it would be abuse.
>Can you promise me that
>drug users are not going to turn violent?
Can you promise me that people with sucky jobs are not going to turn
violent?
Can you promise me that alcohol users are not going to turn violent?
There's *ZERO* evidence that "drugs", across the board, cause violence.
There's lots of evidence that any criminalized but "desirable" substance
will create violence.
>Can you peomise me that they will
>not steal to support their habit?
Can you promise me that people will not steal to support their Beanie
Baby collection? Their alcohol problem?
Unless you think this is an argument for outlawing Beanie Babies, you
have to drop it.
I can promise you that *FEWER* of them will steal to support their habit
if drugs are decriminalized, because drugs will cost dramatically less,
and there would be no point.
>Can you promise me that drug users can
>take drugs and live up to their responsibilities to their families and
>employers all the time?
I can promise you that "drugs", in general, are no more likely to interfere
with this than, say, alcohol, or a strong sex drive. (Look at Mr. Clinton.
Should we have him neutered just to keep him under control?)
Can you find examples of people who live up to their responsibilities to their
families and employers all the time? I do no drugs, I occasionally drink
*one* beer if I'm having trouble getting to sleep (I drink little enough that
this works fine), and I can tell you that I don't think I always do a good
enough job.
>What about heroin and crack? What about crystal meth? Forget pot. Should any
>and all drugs be legalized?
Some should. Almost all should probably be decriminalized, however, to do
that we need an effective structure of laws controlling "behavior while
intoxicated". Criminalizing them just removes the potential for society
to *regulate* their usage - which it probably needs to do.
In other words, I don't think we need a law against people using heroin.
We need laws against people driving while using heroin. We need treatment
programs. But criminalizing it has failed miserably.
>That's not true. We see the impact of drug use all the time in our society.
No, we don't. We see the impact of drug *ABUSE*.
We also see the impact of alcohol *abuse*.
People killed by drunk drivers are not victims of alcohol *use*, they are
victims of alcohol *abuse*. The two are disjoint. The people who are
killed by drunk drivers were not killed by someone who drinks one or two
glasses of wine with dinner and has a designated driver take him home.
>Zoom out and look at the big picture. When you allow certain types of
>behavior, there are consequences. That's what you look at when you decide to
>regulate behavior or not -- is protecting this individual freedom worth the
>probable price we will pay as a society?
But you're counting the price as if all users of any kind of drug whatsoever
will turn into rampant abusers - and also assuming that the $ cost to them,
thus, the incentive to steal, will stay as high as it is when drugs are a
black market item. Have you taken the time to read up on the history of
Prohibition yet? You should. It would be very informative.
>But if it's illegal, it isn't your decision anymore, if abiding by the rules
>of society is important to you.
Yeah, and if we pass a law against thinking about elephants, it's "not your
decision anymore". Certain laws are intrinsically unjust, because they
interfere with individual liberties *even when those liberties have no
effect on the rest of society*.
>Lots of money. The knowledge that they are ingrained in our society. That
>doesn't make it right.
Neither. It's the knowledge that criminalizing them *makes the problem
worse*.
>Why can't a society say, "Alcohol and tobacco are bad, but we realize that
>they are too big a part of our culture so banning them is a bad idea, but
>drugs just have a toehold so banning them may be effective"?
Because it's blatantly untrue. Because it's obvious that banning them can't
be effective, and it was just as obvious ten years ago.
BANNING DOES NOT WORK.
>But I agree that pot should be decriminalized. Other drugs are a different
>story perhaps.
Probably. I think the existing base of laws should be mostly enough; I think
we'd need to generalize a few (like the DUI laws), and tax drugs, and create
treatment programs (presumably funded by the taxes).
-s
--
Copyright 1998, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Send me money - get cool programs and hardware! No commuting, please.
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
Peter Seebach
>The effectiveness of bans on drugs has little to do with the concept of
>whether society has the right to regulate its members, which is the issue at
>hand.
Society has the right to regulate its members as long as it doesn't deny
any of their rights.
You could make a case for having the right to drink alcoholic beverages,
but you can't make a very good case for the "right" to drive drunk.
Your right to swing your arm ends just short of my nose. Your right to
drink, and your right to drive, end when you start driving drunk on a
public road.
If you were *REALLY* rich, and you built yourself a huge array of private
roads, which weren't connected to the rest of the road system, and you wanted
to drive drunk on it, I can't see why anyone would want to stop you.
Courageous
> drug users are not going to turn violent? Can you peomise me that they will
> not steal to support their habit?
The VAST majority of the price of an illegal drug
on the streets is due directly to its illegal nature.
A heroin junkie with a $1,000 dollar a week habit
could get the same heroin for $20 a week if it were
legal.
C/
Courageous
> I can promise you that *FEWER* of them will steal to support their habit
> if drugs are decriminalized, because drugs will cost dramatically less,
> and there would be no point.
For some drugs, 50 times less, in fact.
C/
Neil Harrington
>> Why is it such a substantial leap then for a society
>>to judge that drugs are bad for it, and pass laws to regulate drug use?
>
>Because that's someone else making a decision that is MINE to make. My drug
use
>or lack thereof will impact no one but me.
It would be nice if that were always true.
Unfortunately it is not. People addicted to drugs often end up being
supported by the taxpayer, sometimes at very great expense. One patient I
knew who had managed to totally screw up her CNS through drug use was on
special medication costing the taxpayers $2,000 per week--that's in addition
to the regular cost of maintaining her in a rehab unit (though she in fact
would never be physically rehabilitated, there was no other place in the
hospital capable of caring for her). She was in her early twenties, would
never be able to walk, care for herself, or even feed herself again, as far
as anyone knew. Perfectly useless and a burden on the taxpayers for perhaps
another 60 years or so, but of course *before* her hospitalization she would
have said just what you're saying--that her drug use would impact no one but
herself.
Another and much larger problem today is the connection between welfare and
drug trafficking. Studies in Hartford have shown that in that city illegal
drug sales double on the 1st and 15th of the month when the welfare checks
are delivered, and that the gangs whose income is chiefly derived from drug
sales are in fact being taxpayer-supported indirectly through welfare
payments. Even if you believe that *your* drug use is no one's business but
your own, you should (assuming you're a taxpayer) have some objection to
thousands of citizens in your own or some nearby city being kept addicted to
drugs at your expense, the same process maintaining vicious criminals in
street gangs likewise at your expense.
>Therefore, the decision for me to
>begin using drugs is MINE. If American society has been thought to have
>"decided" drugs are bad for it, explain to me why alcohol remains legal.
You have a point, but not a very persuasive one. While alcoholism is and has
always been a problem, it has never been as vicious a problem as drug
addiction, and that's the difference. I have worked with many, many
alcoholics over the years (in the clinical setting), and I can assure you
that they are not even remotely like drug addicts in their thinking, their
attitude, or their relationship to the people and the world around them.
Alcoholics are at the very worst a minor local nuisance when drunk. Drug
addicts are a menace to society. Alcoholics don't break into homes to steal,
or mug people in the street, in order to get their next fix. Alcoholics
don't murder each other (and often innocents as well) over deals gone bad.
There just isn't any real similarity.
Neil Harrington
Courageous
> talking about booze, tobacco products, fast food, internal combustion
> engines, etc.
Tabacco and alcohol cause more health problem PER CAPITA
than most illegal drugs. For that matter, why is the FDA
forbids the creation of newer, less harmful recreational
drugs for general use by the people? Anyone ever wonder
that? Eh?
C/
Courageous
> wrong when it was openly, legally, and universally practiced, which, as I've
> noted, was the case for thousands of years.
False.
C/
Mark Asher
wrote:
>>The effectiveness of bans on drugs has little to do with the concept of
>>whether society has the right to regulate its members, which is the issue
at
>>hand.
>
>Society has the right to regulate its members as long as it doesn't deny
>any of their rights.
Why are individual rights more important than the welfare of the group?
Mark Asher
Mark Asher
snip
>Unless you think this is an argument for outlawing Beanie Babies, you
>have to drop it.
Here's the real argument: By legalizing drug use, you remove some barriers
and you can almost count on a greater percentage of people using drugs. It's
not really an issue of individual liberty.
So the real question is, is the right to take drugs important enough that we
will protect that right, knowing that more people will use drugs to the
detriment of society? It's a tradeoff. There is nothing sacrosant about an
individual's liberty to take drugs AND remain a member of society.
You seem to think that society doesn't have a right to make rules that
affect you if your actions harm no one else. Hasn't the entire history of
civilization proven this otherwise?
Mark Asher
BrianW
Courageous wrote:
> > No. It is wrong today only because today's morality is different. It was not
> > wrong when it was openly, legally, and universally practiced, which, as I've
> > noted, was the case for thousands of years.
>
> False.
>
> C/
Courageous
> >use or lack thereof will impact no one but me.
> Unfortunately it is not [true]. People addicted to drugs often end up being
> supported by the taxpayer, sometimes at very great expense. One patient I
> knew who had managed to totally screw up her CNS through drug use was on
> special medication costing the taxpayers $2,000 per week--that's in addition
> to the regular cost of maintaining her in a rehab unit
I didn't even bother reading your whole article. You are
arguing from a fixed position involving assumption that
we haven't even mutally agreed upon. The entire basis for
your belief, as outlined in the above paragraph, that those
drug users "cost society" FIRST ASSUMES TO BE TRUE that said
drug users havean entitlement to be "taken care of" in the
first place.
I object to your assumption, do not believe it to be true,
contend that you have not shown it to be true, and accuse
you of engaging in argumentative fallacy:
Petitio principii. You have assumptions that are at least
as questionable as the subject matter itself.
C/
Courageous
> >any of their rights.
>
> Why are individual rights more important than the welfare of the group?
Mark,
Perhaps I merely missed your response, but off in another thread
I asserted that there's really no such thing as a group. It does
not concretely exist in the physical universe. Rather, there are
merely individuals.
A group is not a thing... it is merely an aggregation of individuals
who identify themselves or are identified by others as having the
property of "belonginess" to said aggregation.
For instance, if I challenged you to prove to me that a baseball
team existed, you would point at Jeff, John, and Billy Ray as
evidence. You would point at individuals. And they are the ONLY
thing you could show me. Everything else is merely an invention.
Something we make up in our heads... attributes that we assign
to the plurality of individuals that we identify with eachother
for whatever reason.
Back to the group thing. I would vastly prefer you to say something
like "why are the rights of the minority more important thant he
desires of the majority?" because in the end that is exactly what
you are talking about.
But if the rights of the majority are said to be more important
than the rights of the minority ... Gawd, Mark ... haven't we
already been down this conversational path a dozen times now?
It is a position you cannot defend, Mark.
C/
Peter Seebach
>Sorry, but governments can respect some rights and decide others are
>contrary to the good of society.
Yes. If what they decide is contrary to the good of society is really
a *right*, they are wrong, and they are acting to the detriment of society.
People can "decide" anything they want. Sometimes they're wrong.
Ben Flieger
Alan wrote in message ...
>>little witticisms.
>>No taxation without representation, eh?(Granted, Adams coined that,
>>but I'm pretty sure Franklin endorsed it, if not repeated it)
>>
>>Perhaps the greatest propaganda in the history of the world. I am in
>>awe of those men, Hitler's buddies can't hold a candle to their
work.
>
>The objective of propoganda is to persuade people to your way of
thinking
>while gambling that they will be too lazy to research the facts
themselves.
>They will simply "take your word for it." If one does the research
one will
>discover that Ben Franklin's statement has been proven throughout
history.
Really? He was stating his opinion, BTW, not saying "Those who give up
their liberty for security don't get either."
>Any society, in which the members were not willing to defend their
life,
>liberty, and property from those who would take it from them without
their
>consent, do not deserve to have those things.
Again, this is an opinion. You need to learn the difference between
saying people don't deserve something and people actually not having
that thing.
Their inaction itself
>consitutes an endorsement of that policy. If a thief steals something
from
>you and you do nothing about it (object to the theft, stop him,
report it to
>the police) then you have encouraged that type of activity to
continue.
>
>To compare Hitler with Franklin is absurd.
You are correct, no one believes Nazi bullshit, and many people
believe that Sons of Liberty crap.
Mark Asher
>> Unfortunately it is not [true]. People addicted to drugs often end up
being
>> supported by the taxpayer, sometimes at very great expense. One patient I
>> knew who had managed to totally screw up her CNS through drug use was on
>> special medication costing the taxpayers $2,000 per week--that's in
addition
>> to the regular cost of maintaining her in a rehab unit
>
>I didn't even bother reading your whole article. You are
>arguing from a fixed position involving assumption that
>we haven't even mutally agreed upon. The entire basis for
>your belief, as outlined in the above paragraph, that those
>drug users "cost society" FIRST ASSUMES TO BE TRUE that said
>drug users havean entitlement to be "taken care of" in the
>first place.
>
>I object to your assumption, do not believe it to be true,
>contend that you have not shown it to be true, and accuse
>you of engaging in argumentative fallacy:
Let's be realistic: We are not going to turn our backs on the poor, the ill,
and the elderly anytime soon and allow them to fend for themselves. If you
want to argue fairy-tale governments, so be it. But the reality is that we
as a society have decided that we will help these groups to some extent. So
if legalizing drugs is likely to cause their ranks to swell, then it does
indeed have an impact on society, and that's a valid reason to argue against
it.
It's all good and well to argue political theory, but decisions are made
based on political reality.
Mark Asher
Mark Asher
>> >Society has the right to regulate its members as long as it doesn't deny
>> >any of their rights.
>>
>> Why are individual rights more important than the welfare of the group?
>
>Mark,
snip
>But if the rights of the majority are said to be more important
>than the rights of the minority ... Gawd, Mark ... haven't we
>already been down this conversational path a dozen times now?
>
>It is a position you cannot defend, Mark.
Sure it is: Why is every single right of the individual more important than
the welfare of the majority?
Put it another way: If we can be fairly certain that legalizing crystal meth
will be harmful to society, why should we let anyone use it? How can you
defend that?
Mark Asher
Mark Asher
Courageous wrote in message <36741D28...@san.rr.com>...
And price is a known economic barrier. Legalize heroin and the price drops
and the usage increases. Is that a good thing? Is society better off with
more or fewer heroin users?
Mark Asher
>
>
>
>C/
Mark Asher
Courageous wrote in message <36742015...@san.rr.com>...
Probably because we are against drug use in general. I don't think it's a
conspiracy funded by the alcohol and tobacco industries, if that is what
you're getting at.
Mark Asher
>
>
>
>C/
Courageous
> >> supported by the taxpayer
> >I didn't even bother reading your whole article. You are
> >arguing from a fixed position involving assumption that
> >we haven't even mutally agreed upon. The entire basis for
> >your belief, as outlined in the above paragraph, that those
> >drug users "cost society" FIRST ASSUMES TO BE TRUE that said
> >drug users havean entitlement to be "taken care of" in the
> >first place.
> Let's be realistic: We are not going to turn our backs on the poor, the ill,
> and the elderly anytime soon and allow them to fend for themselves.
You have an annoying habit of putting Straw Men into your arguments,
Mark. Would you cut that out?!?! We'll talk about the poor and elderly
when the issue is pertinent, but until then I refuse to allow you to
put words in my mouth. I don't appreciate your Red Herring, either.
The elderly and poor are not what we are talking about.
The real question is this: do users/abusers of drugs have an
entitlement to medical care at the expense of the rest of us?
We haven't addressed that question in this thread, it hasn't been
shown that they do, and assuming the question to be true when it
is in fact still questionable is a fallacy. PERIOD.
Back to the issue of societal cost. If "cost to society" or
risk is a basis for prohibition, then it follows from that basis
that numerous other activities should also be prohibited. Why
are you only focusing on drugs???? What about NASCAR racing?
Extreme sports? Downhill skiing? Ad nauseum?
> If you want to argue fairy-tale governments, so be it. But the reality is that we
> as a society have decided that we will help these groups to some extent.
Circulus in demonstrando: it was only a matter of time before
circular reasoning presented itself. Since we are arguing about
whether or not such groups should be helped, you cannot submit
into your premises that such groups will be helped, because that
is what we are arguing about.
C/
Neil Harrington
>> No. It is wrong today only because today's morality is different. It was
not
>> wrong when it was openly, legally, and universally practiced, which, as
I've
>> noted, was the case for thousands of years.
>
>
>
>False.
>
>
>
>C/
That's it, eh? No facts in opposition, no rationale, no logical argument, no
thought. Just a simple refusal to admit the truth, as though by standing in
the doorway you can prevent it from entering.
Read a little history, and try to do it with an open mind. It will do
wonders to correct your "epistemological basis" and other fictions.
Neil Harrington