Regulation of Drugs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You act like my stance is something emotional, when in fact it's a well-thought out position, based in fact on Rand's idea that to fight evil you don't sanction it.

Shayne,

If it's all that well thought out, then you should be aware that I don't want it here in that form. There is a context here with a group of values on the table, not just the one you are discussing.

I am running a discussion forum based on checking premises, not a moral condemnation forum. We have talked about this.

When you choose one value that destroys the other values and act on it, you have stepped outside of my context.

Do it on your own forum. Then I will have no problem with it.

Michael

[sjw]

If it's all that well thought out, then you should be aware that I don't want it here in that form.

What form? As in swear-words?

I am running a discussion forum based on checking premises, not a moral condemnation forum.

It's unclear to me what you want. Clearly I don't want a moral condemnation forum just because I believe some things should be morally condemned.

It also seems clear that you wouldn't allow anyone to discuss anything. E.g., you wouldn't want a "premise checking" debate about whether Hitler was right to murder Jews. So I don't know that your tolerance position is coherent.

Shayne

[tjohnson]

If you don't care about rights how are you able to identify any situation as a "problem"? Blind instinct? Gut feeling? Psychic vibrations?

... said GS, presuming his evaluation had any objective relation to existence.

You made my day! ROFL!

You find that funny?? I don't even know what it means - it's like you guys speak a different language or something. Anyway, what have "rights" got to do with identifying social problems? Obesity is becoming a social problem is it not? How do "rights" enter into that?

[georgedonnelly]

I have no idea where you got the idea that Howard is a social tyrant from his few posts.

tyrant: An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.

oppressive: Exercising power arbitrarily and often unjustly.

What HH advocates in this thread is oppressive.

If the characterization fits but he doesn't like it then he is choosing to evade reality if as a result he ceases participating.

If the characterization fits but you refrain from stating it because you're afraid of hurting his feelings, is that not a kind of dishonesty (which is an evasion of reality)?

This crap keeps people away from Rand's ideas. They look and think, "If I am going to learn how to be like that, I want none of it." Then they go to church and be happy around nice people.

Part of persuading is being a high-quality example of value. Objectivists need to learn this. One of the things I admire in TAS is that they have learned it. Nobody wants to become a snarling nasty little soul who barks at the drop of a hat. They want to admire greatness. And they don't want to be told about it only. They want to see it. They want to see how practitioners turn out.

The tagline and ostensible purpose of your excellent website is "Dedicated to Ayn Rand and the Art of Living Consciously".

But it sounds like your purpose may be "To Show off Objectivist Poster-Boys and Convert Persuade People to Objectivism".

You make objectivism sound like a finishing school.

Shayne, I suspect what Michael wants is for you to abstain from using profanity, which I think is not allowed per the Posting Guidelines. He may also dislike that you make snap judgments about people based on little evidence. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Matus1976]

Michael,

I have no idea where you got the idea that Howard is a social tyrant from his few posts. Hitler was a social tyrant. Sadam Hussein was a social tyrant. Stalin was a social tyrant. Howard is a simply poster on an Internet forum who used to be close friends with Harry Binswanger and drifted away from Objectivism.

I consider anyone a social tyrant who believes that either they have the right to tell other people what to do for 'their own good' or they feel morally compelled to force other people to do what they think would objectively be best for them. That's not their call to make, Howard is very clear about this in his post, he thinks he has the right to tell me what to do with my life, to tell me what I can and can not consume based on what he think's would be best for me. To this kind of attitude my reaction is a very real and visceral "F#$* You" It's insulting, de-humanizing and solipsistic. When they are a social tyrant by desire, but lack the tools and weapons to enforce their tyranny, they are 'frustrated'

I am currently experiencing difficulties acquiring a non-addictive, virtually no side effect medication which requires a prescription in the US but is sold over the counter in Europe, and is safer than Caffeine. The FDA is cracking down on the company which manufactures this drug for 'off label' use, while simaltaneously the US military is testing this drug for use specifically for this particular 'off label' function. A bunch of do gooders think that either they know whats best for me, or don't particular care if what they think is best for the majority of people hurts or inhibits quality of life for a minority. Utilitarianism is bullshit, and so is the idea that it's justifiable to make someone a slave if you think 'objectively' it makes their life better.

I personally wanted to sound out his thinking to see why he distanced himself from the philosophy. Shayne told him to fuck off, he got offended and left. Even if he wanted to come back, I am certain he would not want to engage people who call him a social tyrant and so forth.

Well, this thread wasnt about why he distanced hismelf from the philosophy, he jumped in insisting that he has the right to tell us what to do. And you suggest their is value in giving an audience to that? Do you discuss politely the reasons behind your muggers desire to mug you? Do you examine his point of view? Do you ask a theif to try to pursuade you as to why his theft is just? I consider my right to my own life axiomatic and beyond discussion, and anyone who starts with the premise that I do not have said right, and in fact that they do, deserves no serious consideration from me.

Or, as you said,

Bah. I see no value in this.

I'm sure Howard has other things which might be of value to examine, but his right to tell us how to lives our lives is of no value to discuss.

Edited April 11, 2008 by Matus1976

[georgedonnelly]

If you don't care about rights how are you able to identify any situation as a "problem"? Blind instinct? Gut feeling? Psychic vibrations?

... said GS, presuming his evaluation had any objective relation to existence.

You made my day! ROFL!

You find that funny?? I don't even know what it means - it's like you guys speak a different language or something. Anyway, what have "rights" got to do with identifying social problems? Obesity is becoming a social problem is it not? How do "rights" enter into that?

It sounds like you believe that everything is subjective and there is no right or wrong, good or bad. The objective does not exist for you, correct?

So if that's true then what worth does your statement carry?

I find this quote relevant, but I suspect you won't get it.

"We know that we know nothing," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge—"There are no absolutes," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute—"You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious," they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.

Galt's Speech, For the New Intellectual, 154.

Before I even consider whether obesity is a social problem or not, why don't you define "social problem" for us?

Because I say that the concept "social problem" is a lot of BS. Only individuals have problems. Individuals may share similar conditions which they may deem to consider a "problem" but it doesn't go any further than that.

If I have an obese neighbor, why should I care that he is obese?

Brining it back to the topic of the thread, why should I care if my neighbor is a cocaine addict? It may prompt me to move somewhere else but that's as far as it goes.

[sjw]

You find that funny?? I don't even know what it means - it's like you guys speak a different language or something.

When someone believes contradictions are okey-dokey, it's gonna have consequences.

Anyway, what have "rights" got to do with identifying social problems? Obesity is becoming a social problem is it not? How do "rights" enter into that?

The issue I have is with forcibly solving these so-called "social problems." Using unjustified force against your fellow human-beings an even worse "social problem" than the ones you are worried about. So it's not that I disagree that drugs are a social problem, it's that I think you should get your priorities straight.

Shayne

[sjw]

Great post Matus.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

I see, so you are suggesting that it should be legal for a drug company to manufacture and sell Crystal Meth, for example, to the public? I just can't get my head around that. I just can't imagine what life would be like in that kind of society. We have seen tobacco companies being sued for marketing nicotine so what company would want to sell Crystal Meth?? I think this is an example of what happens when you become too idealistic with a philosophy. Of course the moral/principle is important but you have to be realistic. Rules and regulations have evolved over thousands of years for a reason and we can't just abandon them to conform to some individualistic philosophy. I agree that governments have become too invasive and have screwed many things up royally but I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

The assumption is that meth is not now widely available and used--that there is some basic virtue in "the war on drugs" that needs to be honored and respected. While this is being read someone somewhere is cooking up a batch of this crap in their kitchen while a baby crawls across the floor. The war on drugs is what happens when some people become too idealistic about what government can and should do.

--Brant

I don't know why you are quoting me Brant - this is certainly not MY assumption. I already said how I would handle these extremely dangerous drugs.

Sorry, GS, I missed this post of yours. I apologize if I imputed to you something you don't believe in.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

It sounds like you believe that everything is subjective and there is no right or wrong, good or bad. The objective does not exist for you, correct?

So if that's true then what worth does your statement carry?

I find this quote relevant, but I suspect you won't get it.

"We know that we know nothing," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge—"There are no absolutes," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute—"You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious," they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.

Galt's Speech, For the New Intellectual, 154.

Before I even consider whether obesity is a social problem or not, why don't you define "social problem" for us?

Because I say that the concept "social problem" is a lot of BS. Only individuals have problems. Individuals may share similar conditions which they may deem to consider a "problem" but it doesn't go any further than that.

Hmm..If I have an obese neighbor, why should I care that he is obese?

Brining it back to the topic of the thread, why should I care if my neighbor is a cocaine addict? It may prompt me to move somewhere else but that's as far as it goes.

In your language I would have to say that I believe in a combination of subjective-objective existence. We can try and eliminate subjectivity but we cannot completely. This is exemplified best in science.

In Galt's Speech, who does Rand refer to when she says "they chatter" ?

Hmm..not sure how I would define a 'social problem' but I can give examples of what I call social problems - drug abuse, obesity, poverty, unemployment, domestic violence, etc. So I guess it's problems that have a pattern in society. I am not telling you that you should care about your neighbour, I am discussing how to deal with what I consider as a social problem. I don't propose to tell you how to live your life.

[georgedonnelly]

In Galt's Speech, who does Rand refer to when she says "they chatter" ?

Altruists IIRC.

I can give examples of what I call social problems - drug abuse, obesity, poverty, unemployment, domestic violence, etc. So I guess it's problems that have a pattern in society. I am not telling you that you should care about your neighbour, I am discussing how to deal with what I consider as a social problem. I don't propose to tell you how to live your life.

So a social problem is a problem that affects some number of individuals. Adding "social" to "problem" doesn't seem to add any meaning and would appear superfluous.

You may not think you are telling people how to live but you are imposing your idea of what constitutes a problem on individuals.

There exist people who use drugs, are overweight, lack many financial resources and are out of work who are quite happy with this condition and do not consider it problematic. Yet you apparently want to say: "No, that IS a problem."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And you suggest their is value in giving an audience to that?

Michael,

On my forum, yes. A great deal of value.

To me, if to nobody else.

This is a discussion forum, not the Boy Scouts or an old boys club for card-carrying zealots.

Also, I disagree with your interpretation of his intentions.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

And you suggest their is value in giving an audience to that?

Michael,

On my forum, yes. A great deal of value.

To me, if to nobody else.

This is a discussion forum, not the Boy Scouts or an old boys club for card-carrying zealots.

Also, I disagree with your interpretation of his intentions.

Michael

I don't admire Michael's attitude, Michael, in chasing away Howard Hood, but I don't admire HH for running away from a little tough feedback. Too bad, for he obviously had a lot of interest to say especially about what he personally went through because of and after the "Break" of 1968. As for Michael the-chaser-awayer, whom aren't you going to chase away if you can in your desire to preach to the converted only? What's the point of even being here? Did it ever occur to you some of the heathen can be converted, even if they be such? No room in your cosmology for Howard Hood? Maybe I'm next. The bottom line is reach out and take in or reach out and kill. Not that one must go that far or that far. One can just be much of doing nothing but filling up space on the Internet.

--Brant

Edited April 12, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[tjohnson]

Yes, Shayne asked me if I knew this was an Objectivist list - of course I do! It's pretty boring on the GS list where everyone agrees with everyone else. Seriously,it is very interesting to exchange ideas with people operating from a different ideology and I think it even helps one understand his own unconscious assumptions sometimes.

[tjohnson]

In Galt's Speech, who does Rand refer to when she says "they chatter" ?

Altruists IIRC.

I can give examples of what I call social problems - drug abuse, obesity, poverty, unemployment, domestic violence, etc. So I guess it's problems that have a pattern in society. I am not telling you that you should care about your neighbour, I am discussing how to deal with what I consider as a social problem. I don't propose to tell you how to live your life.

So a social problem is a problem that affects some number of individuals. Adding "social" to "problem" doesn't seem to add any meaning and would appear superfluous.

You may not think you are telling people how to live but you are imposing your idea of what constitutes a problem on individuals.

There exist people who use drugs, are overweight, lack many financial resources and are out of work who are quite happy with this condition and do not consider it problematic. Yet you apparently want to say: "No, that IS a problem."

I'm sorry but what does 'Altruists IIRC' mean?

"Adding "social" to "problem" doesn't seem to add any meaning and would appear superfluous". OK, a 'social' problem would be a culturally induced one perhaps. For example, if one is born with a birth defect then one has a problem but if one develops a drug abuse problem as a child as a result of the circumstances of their upbringing then I think that would be a social problem. 'Lacking financial resources' sounds like a nice way of saying 'poor' but it doesn't change anything. Does the US not have a tremendous problem with Mexican nationals fleeing their homeland north? If life was not problematic in Mexico why are they leaving in droves?

[Wolf DeVoon]

I'm sorry but what does 'Altruists IIRC' mean?

If I remember correctly it means if I remember correctly.

Hey, you're a semanticist, so how come you don't know that?

Oh no! -- obviously another social problem!

[tjohnson]

If I remember correctly it means if I remember correctly.

Hey, you're a semanticist, so how come you don't know that?

Oh no! -- obviously another social problem!

Ah...I was thinking along the lines of Internet Relay Chat or something.

[georgedonnelly]

Wolf: LOL!

OK, a 'social' problem would be a culturally induced one perhaps. For example, if one is born with a birth defect then one has a problem but if one develops a drug abuse problem as a child as a result of the circumstances of their upbringing then I think that would be a social problem.

culture: The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.

induce: to lead or move by persuasion or influence, as to some action or state of mind

So a social problem is a problem that persons persuade other persons to experience? Sure, that makes sense.

But I don't see why that needs any special consideration as long as no force or fraud are used in the persuasion. Just because my neighbors convince me to eat McDonalds daily, therefore rendering me obese, why does that now merit some special category or attention in public policy?

IOW, it's nobody's problem but my own and the bureaucrats, politicians and social workers have no business leveraging it to justify initiation of force against others under the assumption that my need to be thin again presents a claim check on their freedom, attention or productive ability.

Does the US not have a tremendous problem with Mexican nationals fleeing their homeland north? If life was not problematic in Mexico why are they leaving in droves?

problem: A situation, matter, or person that presents perplexity or difficulty.

Is undocumented immigration really a problem? I say the prohibition against open borders is the problem.

What does it matter what opinion the undocumenteds hold of life in Mexico, or whatever country they come from? And why is the reason they are leaving relevant to a discussion on immigration?

FWIW I know that in 2001 2 million Colombians left Colombia for approximately the following reasons:

- the initiation of violence by other citizens against them was rampant and almost entirely unchecked by the police and military.

- the economy was not growing (or in recession) due to government regulation and the rampant initiation-of-violence.

But I don't see why that should enter into the undocumented immigration calculation for the US.

FWIW: For what it's worth

IOW: In other words

[tjohnson]

But I don't see why that needs any special consideration as long as no force or fraud are used in the persuasion. Just because my neighbors convince me to eat McDonalds daily, therefore rendering me obese, why does that now merit some special category or attention in public policy?

IOW, it's nobody's problem but my own and the bureaucrats, politicians and social workers have no business leveraging it to justify initiation of force against others under the assumption that my need to be thin again presents a claim check on their freedom, attention or productive ability.

What about propoganda, what are your views on that? Is that a type of fraud? When people are exposed to massive volumes of advertising every day is this not a type of propaganda? Are we and our children capable of withstanding this and making healthy choices? Is this not a kind of assault, an assault on our nervous systems, and as such doesn't it need to be regulated? This is the one of the mitigating factors in the rationale for suing tobacco companies. It is considered predatory to target young people in advertising cigarettes in order to get them hooked and have a customer for life. How is advertising unhealthy food to people that much different than advertising tobacco products? I don't think your conceptual scheme allows for situations where the difference between persuasion and force is not so clear.

[sjw]

Reach out and kill? That's an odd thing to say when it was Howard who was advocating the use of force against innocent people. On the one hand, he'd wield guns against those who have done nothing to him; on the other, he flounces out at the first bit of resistance from someone who is perhaps on the verge of being kicked out by MSK. And MSK wants Howard's type of person around?

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Reach out and kill? That's an odd thing to say when it was Howard who was advocating the use of force against innocent people. On the one hand, he'd wield guns against those who have done nothing to him; on the other, he flounces out at the first bit of resistance from someone who is perhaps on the verge of being kicked out by MSK. And MSK wants Howard's type of person around?

Shayne

Carefull, I wasn't saying that that was what Michael (not MSK) could end up doing, which is silly, I was talking about things taken out logically to their extreme if not metaphorical conclusions. As for HH, it seems pretty obvious now he wouldn't have lasted regardless. He'd rather have his positions than try to defend them and perhaps change them. If we focus just on Howard it was indeed "an old thing to say," but I was making a much broader point.

--Brant

[georgedonnelly]

I don't think your conceptual scheme allows for situations where the difference between persuasion and force is not so clear.

Advertising qua advertising does not involve force. Unless the statements are demonstrably false then they're not fraud either. Just because my neighbor puts up a billboard for McDonalds on his property does not mean I am forced to look at it or heed its message.

The word persuasion expresses the concept of a process that attempts to change or create an opinion in another person without the use of force. Therefore where persuasion stops is where force and/or fraud begin - there is a clear conceptual line. If the advertising is forced upon me, for example in the case of spam or if someone puts it on my property without my permission I would consider that force has been initiated.

per·suade

1. to prevail on (a person) to do something, as by advising or urging: We could not persuade him to wait.

2. to induce to believe by appealing to reason or understanding; convince: to persuade the judge of the prisoner's innocence.

Let's not get too far off the topic of this thread.

[tjohnson]

Advertising qua advertising does not involve force. Unless the statements are demonstrably false then they're not fraud either. Just because my neighbor puts up a billboard for McDonalds on his property does not mean I am forced to look at it or heed its message.

The word persuasion expresses the concept of a process that attempts to change or create an opinion in another person without the use of force. Therefore where persuasion stops is where force and/or fraud begin - there is a clear conceptual line. If the advertising is forced upon me, for example in the case of spam or if someone puts it on my property without my permission I would consider that force has been initiated.

I think you underestimate the power of continual exposure of suggestion, especially on children.

[Brant Gaede]

Advertising qua advertising does not involve force. Unless the statements are demonstrably false then they're not fraud either. Just because my neighbor puts up a billboard for McDonalds on his property does not mean I am forced to look at it or heed its message.

The word persuasion expresses the concept of a process that attempts to change or create an opinion in another person without the use of force. Therefore where persuasion stops is where force and/or fraud begin - there is a clear conceptual line. If the advertising is forced upon me, for example in the case of spam or if someone puts it on my property without my permission I would consider that force has been initiated.

I think you underestimate the power of continual exposure of suggestion, especially on children.

Adults too. Look how many believe that global warming crap. Children aren't taught critical thinking. They are taught to parrot back the shit their teachers pour down their throats, aka revealed wisdom. School is so bad my young butcher couldn't understand what I was talking about when I asked for .6 lb of ground beef. He first tried to give me .22 lb. He kept saying, "I'm no good at math." I didn't have the heart to tell him he was no good at arithmetic; that it was I who was no good at math. Math for him would be a completely incomprehensible universe. Assuming he graduated from high school, what was he was doing for 12 years? Or, as they say in California, if you want to home-school you have to be a certified teacher. Those certified teachers are sooo goood I just want to reach out and kiss them, raise their salaries and lower their retirement age. We can't thank them enough for what they do.

--Brant

Edited April 12, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[georgedonnelly]

Just because the sheeple will bite at any hook thrown their way does not make it force or fraud!

Clearly YOU do not understand what the 'initiation of force' means.