From: Reason (reason@exratio.com)
Date: Fri Oct 18 2002 - 21:16:13 MDT
I wasn't going to say anything; really I wasn't. But guys, you're both on
crack, to use the euphemism.
--> Robert J. Bradbury
> Ok, my good friend Spike has *finally* gone over the edge.
> I knew it might happen someday, but I thought it might be
> when he got a bit older. :-(
>
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, spike66 wrote:
>
> > Drug laws, instance. The main reason we have
> > them is to prevent dopers from stealing to buy dope. So
> > if you can prevent theft by other means, there is no longer
> > a compelling reason to have anti-drug laws.
If there were no drug laws, drugs would be so cheap that anyone could afford
to use them. The real reasons for drug laws lie rooted in the quintessential
human desire for control of anything disapproved.
Myself, I don't like associating with heavy drug users. The ones I have
known were mostly selfish, unstable, hurtful people. But so what? It's a big
world, and I don't have to pick drug users for friends. It's their choice,
and a choice that neither I nor anyone else should grant themselves rights
to change.
> Jimeny cricket spike. Of course there is a reason to have
> anti-drug laws. To prevent people from killing themselves
> and/or others!
Why should people be prevented from killing themselves by the agents of the
state? Really now.
And on to the "prevention" thing. Laws of prevention are a sickness in our
culture. They are the result of and foster the growth of a society in which
no-one is considered responsible for their actions. No-one is thought
responsible enough to make their own chioces and live with the results.
If we must have these codified laws -- and personally, I'd be a lot happier
without them, since they do no better than a system based on three simple
rules and human judgement, and cost us all a lot more -- then laws of
deterrence serve better. Punish people for what they do. It's that simple.
There are a million courses of action leading up to the one point of person
X killing person Y. Are you going to support laws that stricture and
constrain every one of those courses of action? This seems to be the
direction our sick society is headed; presupposing that everyone will murder
unless deprived of every means. Of course, the laws don't do anything --
they are just letters on paper -- it is the agents of the state who have to
enforce every one of these things. Monsterous inefficiency, not to say
making slaves of us all.
How much more efficient it is just to punish people who kill. That devolves
enforcement to where it belongs, to the person who makes the choice in
knowledge of the result.
> Spike -- get this -- drugs are "usually" bad. They can
> destroy a reasonably rational thinking process on which the
> whole structure of society is based. They are risky
> for the people taking them and they are potentially
> risky for *you*!
Sigh. So are videogames, you know, or so they say. For every heavy drug user
I have known, there are ten or more who used in moderation and were fine and
dandy people. I can think of people who messed up their reasonably rational
thinking processes and carefully planned lives and finances working 80 weeks
for dotcom companies. Are we banning work next?
I won't even start on religion in this context: too fat of a target.
> The normal concept of legal "deterrence" (no, you shouldn't
> *eat* human bodies -- we have a law against that) may
> disappear when people are on drugs. They may not be
> thinking "rationally". IMO, drug consumption is something
> that should primarily be allowed but it can only be allowed in
> environments where people behaving irrationally cannot
> not pose threats to others. Additionally, if my experience over
> the last couple of days is any example, then regulating
> certain prescription drugs is actually a *good* idea --
> and I would *not* have said that a month ago.
Didn't you research what you took before you took it? I mean, personal
responsibility and all that.
This one is an excellent example of why we have stupid laws that restrict
personal freedom. Person X cannot handle or is worried about their own
freedom/capabilities to perform act Y. Person X is a politician, ends up a
politician, or has the ear of a politician. Voila -- bad legislation is next
up. Person X projects their feelings on act Y onto the rest of the populace,
therefore justifying removing their freedom.
I'm going to stop here rather than jump in on the speeding thing. This sort
of stuff really is rather depressing. So many people would rather be slaves.
Worse than that, they don't want anyone else to be free.
Reason
http://www.exratio.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:39 MST