From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Dec 16 2002 - 11:51:00 MST
--- Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com> wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> > THere are, however, frequently externalities that are not
> considered,
> > which I've illustrated before. For example: if I have minor
> children to
> > care for, and am legally responsible for, then in intoxicating
> myself I
> > am abdicating responsibility for them while I am intoxicated. If I
> > become addicted to an intoxicant, I have physiologically and
> > psychologically abdicated the ability to make responsible decisions
> > free of the influence of the addiction.
> >
>
> 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.
No, if your actions cause harm to the children, then you've crossed the
'innocent until proven guilty' rubicon.
>
>
> > If you are insured against potential damages to others from such,
> fine,
> > go to it, have fun and let me know how to contact your insurance
> > carrier. If you aren't, then I have a problem with your behavior,
> > unless you can post some other sort of bond.
> >
>
> Does your problem lead you to coerce others who you have a
> problem with?
No more than the costs of their actions that are externalized onto
myself constitutes coersion.
>
> > I dont' wish to attract numerous rude flames from those on the list
> who
> > are militantly pro-drug to the point of flaming anybody with a
> rational
> > libertarian argument such as that above. If you don't agree with my
> > opinion, so be it, but don't think that your posting rude responses
> is
> > going to change my opinion (I'm only saying this because that was
> the
> > response from a few individuals the last time I made the above
> statement).
> >
>
> 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. You do agree to
> that don't you?
Yes, I do. The problem, of course, is by whose judgement is 'nobody
getting hurt'? If the person judging is impaired in their judgement by
drugs, then their opinion is compromised. If you are placing me at risk
by driving drunk or high on the same roads I use, then you are 'harming
me', at least a little in that you cause my insurance premiums to be
higher than they need to be. If you get into an accident with me
because of your impaired judgement, then you are certainly harming me.
If you are not insured against such risk, you are most certainly
harming me to the maximum degree possible.
>
> The last time, iirc, you made a much more inflammatory statement
> and you got suitably a bit smoked from the flames you started
> and fanned. The above statement isn't so bad on the face of it
> depending on whether or not you think it justifies any part of
> the "War on Drugs".
My original statement was very much like my above one, it just
triggered some who did not fully read my statement before they chose to respond.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:46 MST