From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Dec 16 2002 - 13:07:07 MST
--- Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com> wrote:
> 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.
Actually, things like blood alcohol levels, etc are very useful in
determining an individuals degree of responsibility/valid self
judgement.
WHile there is some variability in tolerance between individuals, there
are levels at which absolutely nobody is in a responsible state.
Furthermore, field sobriety tests are also very useful, though they are
more subjectively interpreted based on the administrators bias as much
as the variable tolerance of the individual.
>
> >
> >>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.
Indecency doesn't have anything to do with it. Risk to the public is
another matter entirely. If your choice to act irresponsibly puts the
public at risk, then the public is being coerced by you into assuming
the costs of that increased risk.
>
> 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.
Certainly, and I don't think either Robert or myself disagrees with you
in this. The problem there is if you retain the ability to leave that
location and place others at risk while impaired. If you leave your car
keys with a responsible individual, for example, and someone else is
also watching your kids, etc then you should be able to get as high as
you want...
>
> 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. :-)
Having said that I am okay with people getting high under certain
circumstances, I personally don't find it to be something that should
be encouraged or glamorized either. One of the problems with
maintaining a free society is maintaining a recognition in the populace
that self responsibility is the key to maintaining individual liberty,
that when we start to prefer to abdicate responsibility, we start to
seek out institutions which will alleviate us of those
responsibilities. This is the road to government tyranny, and why I
choose not to use to any degree beyond very light social use.
__________________________________________________
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