From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Dec 16 2002 - 10:09:41 MST
Samantha, I'll try to take on a couple of your comments.
Please read the entire set of comments before responding.
> Would such alleged or actual practices make it your (or the
> collective "your") business to "protect the children" by
> monitoring my actions and taking them away if you don't approve?
> Careful. Here lies the root of much tyranny.
True. It becomes a critical question of whether people are
able to self-determine when they are in a "responsible" state.
If they are not able to do that, then external intervention may
be necessary (recent public examples might be Nick Nolte and
Winona Ryder).
> Does your problem lead you to coerce others who you have a
> problem with?
If one is not in a self-responsible state then coercion may be required.
The question becomes whether the "problem" is an issue involving
public safety (where coercion may certainly be justified) or
public "conventions" (say laws against public indecency).
This is one of the reasons that I think enclaves will ultimately
be the direction humans will go in. We will each seek out the
"enclave" with "laws" we prefer.
> The above is supposted to be an argument against "drugs" as some
> large lump that can be talked rationally about as a single unit?
> There are drugs and there are drugs. People getting high and
> not hurting anyone is none of your business.
The question becomes whether or not they are able to judge
whether or not they might be hurting anyone. I've recently
had some experience with a physician prescribed medication
where I have questioned my ability to drive a vehicle in
a responsible/reliable fashion -- so much so that I had
to request another extropian to do the driving. It is
only a small step beyond that I fear that one isn't able
to make that judgement call. In that situation "coercion"
by society is necessary for public safety.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:46 MST