georgedonnelly

That's not a [strong] argument. You simply asked a question and tagged on a conclusion without showing any reasoning or even much of a conclusion.

My position is clear. You need to make yours clear. re/ the teenagers: Well what is the product? An Uzi or Atlas Shrugged? Because it make a big difference. And how much is "all of their money"? Is it a sum that constitutes a reasonable price? Or does it constitute an exaggerated price, relative to the current market price?

How an addicted person became addicted is not relevant? If he chose it or if it was forced upon him? That is entirely relevant. The former means he bears full responsibility for the results of his actions. The latter means he bears little if any responsibility. Well let's hear that "strong argument". And let us know whose rights are being violated exactly.

Not here at OL. We are guests of an owner who has apparently placed the condition on us of being civil. If you refuse to abide by the owner's conditions yet continue to be a guest, you are not being entirely respectful of the owner's property rights. That's like a farmer inviting you onto his land with the condition that you not pull out his carrots. And then you pull out his carrots.

HH thinks that a prohibition on the production of certain drugs is a reasonable measure. Yet by the use of reason we come to know that this is a violation of individual rights, the fundamental condition for civilzation. Therefore just because something is deemed reasonable does not mean that it is the result of a process of thinking based on reason.

reason has little if any relation with being reasonable, when the latter is used in the common parlance as you have done. You're conflating two different concepts.

Huh? You're bundling a concept in where it has no basis for belonging. The dictionary definition: If you have a different one, state it and substantiate it because civility does not include the concept of "intellectual honesty". You did more than just ask. Even your questions were just veiled statements. And you do it all the time. For example you claimed I was irrational - not my opinion or my point of view, no, I was irrational. You just turned reality on its head. Civility means courtesy, which means "excellence of manners or social conduct; polite behavior". This means that in social situations (i.e., when dealing with others, not only 'civilized' others), in order to claim you have demonstrated civility, you must behave politely and make use of good manners. The concept 'civility' does not distinguish between social conduct that involves 'civilized' or 'uncivilized' persons.

There is your consent.

Yes. As long as it's just a verbal argument I would chalk it up to either simple confusion or a backwards thinking process. By "backwards thinking process" I mean when you select a desired outcome and attempt to come up with reasoning that will get you to that outcome.

Of course not. And it's not because each government holds, or should hold, a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographic region. Note that I am in no way defending or advocating arbitrary government. Nothing. No... No, I do not. Tell that to the 80-year-old lady who was killed when police beat down her door wrongly thinking she was doing drugs and she tried to defend herself. Or to the motorist who refuses to sign a piece of paper and so gets tazered and thrown in jail. You are using the obviously wrong to condemn something unrelated. You are saying that because the police abuse their authority in the USA of 2008, that in AR's conception of government, they must also be able to do so. Well that is wrong. That's like saying unfettered markets are the cause of the current financial crises. When people say this they are condemning capitalism for the sins of statism. You are condemning AR's objective government for the sins of statist government. You just said that I have an "irrational attitude" but you did not say why exactly, other than presumably because I believe we need government, or because i believe we need one government per geographic area and with a monopoly on the use of force.

It is not equivocation. It is public information now that nicotine, alcohol, cocaine, heroin and other substances form an addiction. So by taking a hit of crack you are making a choice to consume an addictive substance. When you take hits 2, 3, n, it is only clearer and clearer the choice the new addict is making. You simply can not choose crack but not choose the addiction that comes with it. That is an evasion of reality. That's like saying you want to consume a bottle of Tylenol but you don't want to die. You can not pretend that the substance is not addictive. You can't separate the substance from the addiction it predisposes one to. What is important is, when no force or fraud has been used, becoming addicted is a choice, whereas mental illness is usually involuntary. I could say the same thing about vendors of nicotine and alcohol delivery devices but I bet you wouldn't advocate banning those substances. Sure, it's your problem but it does not mean you can not get divorced. The equivalent of your analogy would be an argument that goes like this: Since you took one hit of crack, you must continue taking hits indefinitely. That's not what anyone here is arguing. The most productive thing you can do to make yourself feel better about insulting people is to demolish their arguments. See if you can do it.

I think this is neat and has definite value in the fight against oppression. I wish Will best of luck. I can't imagine how physically demanding a 3600 mile walk would be.

My vigilantism example does not constitute a pragmatic argument but a moral one. What sjw claimed is not true. Peaceful coexistence is difficult if not impossible when one knows that at any time another can unleash Wolf's police on him for no reason at all. Peaceful coexistence and objective law are conditions required for man's survival qua man. AR explained this much better than I can in her essay "The Nature of Government" in "The Virtue of Selfishness". sjw: If you care only to share conclusions and not reasoning then there is little point in posting at all. This is a place for discussion - that is its purpose. So if you don't display your reasoning, what is there to discuss? Nothing. If there is nothing to discuss, why are you participating? No reason. Would you like to talk about irrational attitudes? Which is irrational: (1) the attitude that says here's what I think and why, or (2) here's what I think, without the why, and you are irrational, ignorant and "&*^*%* you!" if you disagree? Wolf, since you mentioned Costa Rica, look at Colombia where we have essentially a civil war run by murderers, rapists, child-impressers and self-proclaimed Marxists. Before 2003 the government was lax and allowed the guerrillas to take small towns and get close enough to big ones to knock out critical infrastructure such as electricity lines and gas pipelines. In 2003 a new government came in and got the police and military off their butts and to work. The guerrillas are now securely on the run. The government may even achieve complete victory soon. This is an example of the government doing its job and protecting citizens from the initiation of force. How would your ideal society it deal with a threat like this? vigilantism: the actions of any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime, in trying to enforce the laws.

That's a pragmatic ... argument. True I suppose. It is not my final word on the subject. This is just a lot of hot air unless you back it up with your reasoning.

Is now and has been but must not necessarily be so. Without government holding the monopoly on the initiation of force, I fear we would descend into vigilantism. In your example of sending someone to arrest the drug dealer who is accused of giving drugs to a child, if the dealer resists because he does not trust the person making the arrest, the arrester could initiate force, possibly deadly force. Now the allies of the dealer will likely consider this unjustified - the original claim of him giving drugs to a minor may even have been false - and may feel their only viable choice is to retaliate, leading to a war. Impotent? What is your basis for this conclusion? Also, the ability to stop crime and corruption, is that really the government's sole claim to legitimacy? I think the claim to legitimacy is that it has been duly elected or formed or ratified by a majority of those that evidenced interest or deigned to participate, that it respects the basic rights of individuals and that it will not initiate force except with due process and when required to prevent the initiation of force (off the top of my head). check: to stop or arrest the motion of suddenly or forcibly

We're talking about drugs and, tangentially, addiction. Sneaking in mental illness as a way to say addiction negates will is ... sneaky, and false. The rest of your argument has already been addressed in this thread.

Hey be careful, I said it might be considered either initiation or a reaction (defense).

I don't. I didn't say any such thing. Yes you did and you know you did, just like you know what "Ayn Rand villain" refers to. Is this what you are referring to: Frankly I am not quite sure what Brant is attempting to express here. BG: no problem.

The government should hold a monopoly on the initiation of force and their use of it would not necessarily involve a violation of rights. For example, if one party sues another for $500 and wins the government could initiate force to cause the $500 to be paid if the loser won't do it. This might not be strictly called an initiation of force though. You might say that it is a reaction to force being used, the force being the loser's reluctance to part with the $500 he owes the winner. If? It is easily verifiable that I did no such thing. I simply put forth a decent effort at refuting his proposals. Why are you so fascinated with declaring individuals "evil" or not that you attempt to define the discussion with it? To call a person "evil" is so over-used and simplistic that I don't find it to be very precise or meaningful. It's usually the ideas that people hold that could be appropriately termed "evil". That might be a better choice of words, yes, thanks. My normal frame of reference is with people who can not handle directness at all, which is surely why I chose "excessive", since these people would consider it excessive. I think we have gotten way off the topic.

Read closely: "When one deals with better people, a full statement of one's views may be morally required." I act under the belief that I am dealing with better people here. Your excerpt is only for when dealing with irrational persons or where argument is futile. I don't think either condition has been met here. If you disagree, the burden of proof is on you. Not my bad manners. And of what relevance is this? Huh? I'm not sure I agree with your definition of sanction. Exactly how have I given grounds to conclude that I define evil as any idea I disagree with? The quote is just my inspiration or purpose for participating in discussions or debates on relevant topics, as compared to MSK's ostensive purpose of persuasion/conversion. Consider the context in which I placed the quote and kindly do not jump to conclusions. sjw: Let me again clarify: I do not intend to argue that it should be acceptable to give potentially harmful objects to children, I simply do not see a rigorous exposition of the rights that would be violated in such a situation and wished to understand it better. In the course of this discussion I used a "devil's-advocate" tactic at times. Other than an occasional "That's BS|cr*p" (which is not a form of address) I have not been rude. By nature I am excessively direct. Also, I consider directness a virtue. Don't you? If you think I am addressing others improperly it behooves you to either provide examples and reasoning or admit that your opinion is baseless. That's like saying I sanction the sidewalk by walking down it, or that I sanction the city by living in it, or that I sanction the landlord by renting from her. This is an open forum for discussing Objectivism where many intelligent, educated and wise persons share their opinions. The website appears to be well-run and the owner(s) allow discussion to run freely. I am granted freedom of expression on someone else's property at no cost and with few conditions. What's not to like? Inasmuch as a person offers a value I seek, I see no reason not to trade with with said person. If a Marxist produces excellent tomatoes, what do I care about his philosophy if he has demonstrated mine by creating an excellent product and offering it in trade? If by this you mean that I have cast light on these discussions then I shall say your compliment is most likely undeserved. Otherwise I have no idea what you mean.

Michael I could not care less as to whether I convinced anyone or not. It is your stated goal to persuade/convert, not mine. You may find my purpose in this quote: Instead of responding in a substantial manner, you are making vague statements and unsupported rebukes: - "I weary of broad opinions." (Which ones and why? Do you prefer narrow opinions? What exactly is the difference?) - "There is a world of difference between acting like a rugged individualist and actually being one." (Care to explain the basis for this statement? Have I been kicked out of the rugged individualist club just because I did not "study and check" to your satisfaction? How do you define 'rugged individualist'?) - "Rugged individualists actually do things like study and check, not just pop out with jargon bromides at the drop of a hat." (Care to identify the "jargon bromides" I have used? Care to define 'jargon bromide'?) - "I realize putting on a rugged individualist air and keeping to generalities is easier and more fun, but it's a dead end intellectually." (What 'airs' am I putting on now? If you want to indict based on the use of generalities you had better bring a jumbo-sized paddy-wagon.) Obviously it is your right to respond or not as you like but as long as I am granted the privilege of posting here I believe it appropriate to question. After all, one of the goals of the website is to promote the art of living consciously, is it not? And btw the topic of this thread is regulation of drugs, not indoctrination. I assume the owner(s) of the forum wish to follow the convention and not get too far off-topic in any given thread. It strikes me that the appropriate action is to start a new thread for a new topic, if discussion on it is desired. Also, this is what AR has to say about an individualist:

This statement is so vague as to be meaningless. Especially because you ain't one of those kids. You haven't even expressed an opinion one way or another. You only said it had merit or importance or deserved consideration. Merit as a tool? Merit as a crime to be prosecuted? Deserves consideration as part of the Objectivist training program? As a 'social problem' that requires 'intervention'? This is what I mean when I say your statement is almost meaningless. count: to have merit, importance, value, etc.; deserve consideration:

I explained why I consider "social problem" to be a false concept. You simply make an unsupported assertion. Umm.. it doesn't, that is the point. the person is caught in a vicious circle. I think it is you who is failing to understand this term. vicious circle: a situation in which effort to solve a given problem results in aggravation of the problem or the creation of a worse problem This is the dictionary definition and the second time I posted it here for you. This is what I mean when I say you corrupt concepts. You take a concept, change it without noting it and proceed to utter perversions. (1) I do not "step over" people on the street. (2) You make unfounded assumptions without knowing anything about me. What does that say about you? (3) Others hold value inasmuch as they have value to offer. What value is it that I should so admire and be concerned about in a person who is living their life with death as their goal?! I resent this statement, I have been trying to be very honest. To me this is an act of desperation by someone who knows he is losing an argument. Give me a break. I am arguing with an entity that does not believe in objective reality, uses passive voice to express opinions in the hopes they'll have greater import, makes unsupported assertions and perverts the meaning of words to suit his purpose. How could 'win' or 'lose' be defined in this context.

There may be a correlation between the consumption of donuts and the ratings of "The Simpsons" but it does not justify a declaration of national social problem status or any rights violations. You may say "but, but ... I don't WANT to violate anyone's RIGHTS!" but if you don't even accept the validity of the concept of rights it is inevitable that you will violate then when meddling in other people's affairs. Who is this "we" that "should intervene" and what form is this "intervention" to take? How do you know the "intervention" will achieve your intended goal and not just cause more problems? How can the boy possibly repeat the behavior if he is still a boy and hasn't even married yet?! I am. How does taking more drugs constitute an effort to solve a problem of drug abuse or addiction? How does beating my wife constitute an effort to solve the problem of domestic violence? You still do not know what the term "vicious circle" means! Then the drug addict should hire the services of professionals who will help him overcome the addiction, if that is what he wants. The wife should procure the means with which to defend herself against the husband's initiation of force, if that is what she wants. There are many options: leaving the husband, taking self-defense classes, buying a weapon, calling the police. This is a very simple issue of an initiation of force. Neither they nor the goody-two-shoes-inventors-of-words-like-social-problem have any business declaring it's a "social problem" requiring the initiation of force to suspend rights or expropriate funds or whatever in order to effect a remedy. GS: Your main debate tactic is the corruption of concepts. Demonstrate some honesty and communicate with integrity. Have you even read Ayn Rand's works of philosophy? It does not appear so.

If the government requires your death and you oppose your own death, aren't you an unadmitted anarchist? What a load of cr*p! This is a loaded question. Government must have a monopoly on the initiation of force but not on the protection of individual rights. This is no different than saying: How can a resident of a country rationally object to paying for health insurance? (assuming the health care industry is nationalized). IOW you advocate the nationalization of the rights protection industry. Shame on you. You need to substantiate your claim that I need government protection. You sound like a mobster running a protection racket. And now this is means-based? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", eh? By definition, any initiation of coercion (force) is a violation of individual rights.