Ayn Rand- Drugs and Prostitution


Recommended Posts

I was watching Sex Slaves on MSNBC (I know am weird, haha) and this question shot into my head, What is the objectivist stance be on both issues? I guessing it would be both should be legal, but would be regarded as immoral.

Thanks,

David C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree if you want to live such a life it is your choice. My problem lies in if someone wants to do drugs can't they end up hurting me. Such as the man who does crack than gets behind a wheel of a car and crashes into me?

Thanks,

David C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree if you want to live such a life it is your choice. My problem lies in if someone wants to do drugs can't they end up hurting me. Such as the man who does crack than gets behind a wheel of a car and crashes into me?

Thanks,

David C.

Yeah. That's pretty blurry. David Friedman does well on answering such things, but it's kind of hard to put into rights. Of course, taking the drug isn't against anyone's rights, but getting into a car when you're out of it and crashing into you is. Same goes for owning a nuclear weapon. Merely owning it isn't hurting anyone, but there's so much potential for destruction that you can't possibly justify owning it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree if you want to live such a life it is your choice. My problem lies in if someone wants to do drugs can't they end up hurting me. Such as the man who does crack than gets behind a wheel of a car and crashes into me?

Thanks,

David C.

Yeah. That's pretty blurry. David Friedman does well on answering such things, but it's kind of hard to put into rights. Of course, taking the drug isn't against anyone's rights, but getting into a car when you're out of it and crashing into you is. Same goes for owning a nuclear weapon. Merely owning it isn't hurting anyone, but there's so much potential for destruction that you can't possibly justify owning it.

This is an area that is problematic for me, as well. I think Objectivism (capital-O) calls for an after-the-fact solution. That is, you are free to be a crackhead, and I am free to sue you for damages if you injure me while hopped up. However, I don't find that to be ideal, especially if I'm dead. One could argue that this is the same situation we already have when it comes to alcohol, but personally, I think there's a much higher risk factor (probability and impact) associated with use of harder substances. The question is who gets to decide what the harder substances are and what standards do they use to make that decision?

I'm anxious to hear what some of our other regulars have to say on this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree, I don't think anybody can decide. It's the perfect example of being stuck between a rock and hard place, either we have someone control drugs or we have people at risk to people who abuse drugs. My belief is that like Milton Freidman believed,which is, if all drugs became legal less people would use them, at first there would be a surge in use but slowly it would die down. My only other problem is what about drugs that effect you when even being near them like smoking, I don't have to be smoking to get the effects if I am around someone who is. My question of course only pertains to public establishments as I believe private areas should choose to allow what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no trouble seeing deliberate endangerment, such as impaired driving, as a case of coercion. I've never seen any Objectivist, professional or not, argue otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reidy- I agree with you, but this is not deliberate endangerment. You can't take a healthy amount of cocaine, once you take it your control over yourself is gone. The same is true for several other drugs. So you are, against your will, endangering people. And even if it was deliberate endangerment how could you possible protect yourself against it. If someone has a gun, I can shoot them back, I can't shoot someone who is driving drunk or should I if I feel endangered?

Thanks,

David C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe somebody can't say no to some addictive substance, but he doesn't have to drive in that condition.

What the law should do about drunk (/etc.) driving and how we can avoid it as drivers or pedestrians are two separate questions. We can't be entirely safe from any risk, but here we can take some precautions. Try not to drive at dangerous times (e.g. closing time for bars) and learn to watch for the signs: weaving, abrupt lane changes or speed changes, open windows in cold weather and so on.

Finally, I don't see why such dangers would argue for prohibition. Nobody draws this conclusion about alcohol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A. Smith and Jones are neighbors. One night for fun Jones builds and launches a homemade bottle rocket. The device sets Smith's house on fire. We all agree that Jones is responsible and must compensate Jones for all damages.

B. One night Jones takes LSD for fun, and afterwards builds and launches a homemade bottle rocket. It sets Smith's house on fire. We all agree that Jones is responsible and must compensate Jones for all damages.

Under Scenario B does Jones owe Smith (or "society") additional damages for setting the house on fire under the influence? If not, then we must conclude that ipso facto the taking of the drug does not violate another's rights and should therefore not be treated as a crime.

But, some might object, drugs lead to irrational actions which endanger others. Yes, but so do certain religious cults. Do we wish to fine or jail people for joining them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under this line of reasoning, one has any rights to endanger others - unless or until your house gets hit by a rocket? Firng off rockets in suburbia, or weaving all over the road, represents potential danger. More than enough to be pulled over I'd think.

(Dallas, should endangerment be deliberate to be endangerment?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reidy- it being drunk driving is irrelevant, what if someone who is on drugs stabs me because he thinks I am a cupcake (that was my attempt at a joke), either way it doesn't matter. I agree you can't be entirely safe, but I can be safe from people who try to harm me on purpose who are not on drugs by shooting them, fighting them, or simply put I could defend myself. I can't just shoot someone who is drunk because they don't have control over their will and they will return to being functional, A murderer who wants to hurt me is a murderer who wants to hurt me by their own rationality. I agree with exactly what you said whYNOT, my problem is what if you can't see the signs or stop the person in time. And A is A, danger is danger, my problem is if someone wants to do danger to themselves that's their funeral weather or not it was on purpose or not, but them hurting themselves can lead to my death regardless if it was on purpose or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under this line of reasoning, one has any rights to endanger others - unless or until your house gets hit by a rocket? Firng off rockets in suburbia, or weaving all over the road, represents potential danger. More than enough to be pulled over I'd think.

(Dallas, should endangerment be deliberate to be endangerment?)

Things may be different in the Southern Hemisphere, but in the U.S. of A. bottle rockets are launched by the tens of thousands into the July 4th sky every year. Although many localities prohibit such pyrotechnics, there are few who would consider them a serious danger to others. Only about four people per year die in fireworks accidents.

On the other hand, when you consider how easily cars can be made to swerve into oncoming traffic with ghastly results, we could just as well argue that driving an automobile is based on the presumption of the "right to endanger others." Car crashes cost 34,080 lives in 2012. And thousands of those were killed by drivers who were wide awake and sober as a judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A speeding car is a guided missile, and under insufficient control is as lethal. Just as if someone fires a handgun indiscriminately in public, he must be arrested. Granted, we are not mind readers who can establish who isn't capable of driving, so many car crashes can't be anticipated and prevented- they are 'accidents'.

But a driver without responsibility to himself or to others around him - as evidenced by his driving: jumping stop streets etc. - indicates his state of mind and is inarguably a much higher risk. He has no "right to endanger others" any further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The essential question is whether behavior that causes harm to others should be punished more (made costlier to the perpetrator) if drugs are involved.

As I argue above, the taking of a drug in and of itself does not cause damage to others' property.

In the future, when roads are privately owned, the owners may choose to reduce fatalities by limiting the use of their thoroughfares to sober drivers. I chose, however, to discuss the example of the bottle rocket maker so that the conflict existed only between two parties.

As we can see in the example, the harm to Smith is exactly the same whether drugs are involved or not. Consequently, Smith (and society, if we want to think in collective terms) are not due any greater compensation as a result of the presence of drugs in Jones's body. In sum, Jones should not be punished, fined, or assessed for drug use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question for me is if Jones is more likely to shoot a bottle rocket into Smith's house when under the influence and how likely is the bottle rocket to cause irreparable damage. If the substance in question has a 100% chance of causing Smith to act a fool and work some mischief and that mischief is 100% assured of leading to a fatality of anyone other than Smith himself, then I can be 100% comfortable in prohibition of that substance. Problem is that certainties like that do not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, it's the act of endangerment, then liability for any consequences - but not the chemical contents of his body - that are valid.

And if the chemical contents of his body ARE the act of endangerment?

'Self-responsibility' - is exactly that, in all things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now