From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Dec 16 2002 - 12:04:57 MST
Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> 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).
>
But is there any way of determining whether they are "in a
responsible state"? I think it would avoid a lot more evils if
people were simply held rigorously accountable for results of
their actions without the State attempting to preemptively
determine whether their state was acceptable or not.
>
>>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.
>
Coercion should only be required in my view if the person is
actually acting in such a manner as to actually harm others.
Public saftety should only be invoked when actual real harm is
occurring or is imminent. Public "indecency" generally does not
qualify as no real harm is being done.
Law seems, for better or worse (mainly the latter), to be going
global. More cases imply that one nation's laws can be applied
anywhere in the world every month or so.
>
>>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.
>
It is not a matter of whether they can judge. You certainly
cannot judge easily what they can or cannot judge. A person
alone or with others taking a drug in a carefully chosen
location (setting) that is safe should certainly not be bound by
any law.
I think we are talking about somewhat different things also. I
am saying things directly about the asinine "War on Drugs" and
more generally about some of its justifications (and
justifications of many other things "for our own good") and
resulting dangers to freedom. Hmmm. So maybe I am talking
about different things at once. :-)
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:46 MST