georgedonnelly

"Since when should the means be more important than the end?" This debate is all about the means and the end. HH thinks if he defines the end to be the protection of individual rights then it's ok to steal. What?! That's like saying that I have to kill you in order to protect life. The means are always more important than the end and the method is always more important than the purpose.

MAY is the right word. To beat your wife or your children, to drink, smoke, or do drugs is all a choice. Just because I saw my dad doing something undesirable on a daily basis as a kid does not mean I will do it too. As a human being I have control over myself and may decide what to imitate and what not to. Anyone who claims they initiated force because they just couldn't control themselves either requires restraint and psychological / psychiatric assistance or they are simply evading reality (lying). WHO considers it? You consider it? If so, come out and say it. Your use of passive voice here lops the head off the body of the sentence and results in a floating statement with no connection to reality. There is no such thing as a "social problem". There are only violations of rights among individuals and the law of causality. 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 I don't think you're using the term "vicious circle" quite correctly.

This statement is so vague as to be meaningless. Of what import is the mentality? This sounds similar to giving importance to intentions, which brings us to: "But I didn't MEAN it!" Well, tough luck, you DID it. It can't be outlawed.

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.

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

Wolf: LOL! 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. 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

Altruists IIRC. 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."

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. 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.

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)? 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.

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!

I found this sad and hilarious at the same time: That's not really what the book is about.

Wolf I enjoy and admire your work, but AR has this to say about duty: Having been raised a Catholic and a conservative republican (frequently resenting it) I could not agree with her more! Duty is a load of horsecr*p. I don't have as much leg to stand on as I thought wrt responsibility, though I remember her saying she disliked the word, maybe on Phil Donahue.

So you are only concerned with the rights of the "good" people? or the people you like? Protecting the rights of the unpopular is the front line in the war on liberty. I am simply trying to comprehend the precise rights situation that exists when adults present minors with objects that can harm them. Michael is the only one that has made a real effort to explain that. It is extremely sad when people worry more about what others will think than about identifying the truth and the right.

Wolf: I thought there were no responsibilities and duties in Objectivism? Michael: I'm not convinced but I don't have anything else to add.

I am aware, though certainly am no expert. I have never been an addict but I have seen plenty up close in North Philly (5 days/week for 4 years in high school), Chicago (4 years at U of Chicago, 2 years as a cabdriver) and in Colombia (5 days/week for 2 years transiting the downtown to go to work). And I have seen plenty of alcohol and nicotine addiction much more up-close than I preferred. But I'm not sure how relevant this is. The fact is that people voluntarily choose to use these nasty drugs. Here in Colombia where the drugs are too expensive for certain poor people, they sniff glue, shoe polish and do all kinds of other crazy stuff to get highs from common household items. Which goes to show that certain people refuse to deal with reality and will do anything to escape from it. Ban heroin, cocaine and meth. They sniff glue. Ban glue. They eat fungi. Ban fungi [!]. They sniff nail polish, liquid paper, permanent markers. They will always find something. Are you going to ban all of these items? Just the ones that do the most damage? Where do you draw the line and when someone disagrees why do you get to impose your opinion on them? The bottom line is that people are free to choose from either the good or the bad. Consenting adults must be allowed to make their own choices, and accept the consequences for them. Once you require people to select the good (or your conception of what is good) you have a slippery slope to dictatorship. [i read your post, but not the links. I may read the links later.]

You can read about other uses for Meth here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine Heroin has been used as a pain killer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin Cocaine is used as a topical anesthetic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine re/ crack: "Cocaine is a substance that affects the brain chemistry of the user. Its main effect is to release a large amount of dopamine, a brain chemical inducing feelings of euphoria." This does not constitute altering "a brain function to the point where it is almost useless." You guys arguing that adults can't give drugs to minors, your argument boils down to: "But, but ... it's WRONG!" And there is undoubtedly something wrong with it but I don't think anyone has solidly identified WHY. It is up to the parents to be the first enforcer of their right to raise their children. If you let your child roam the streets without supervision and direction and he consumes drugs, or raw sugar, or chocolate bars or a beer, you, the parent, screwed up. I'm not saying it's ok to provide children with objects that could do them harm. I'm just saying it's the parents' job to police their children and I do not clearly see the philosophical foundation for prosecuting the ones who provide the potentially-harmful objects. As for the issue of regulating the exchange of drugs between consenting adults, you who advocate it have decisively failed to prove your point. Those who like to fall back on name-calling and cries of "false analogy!" would do better to say nothing because you only demonstrate that you indeed have nothing to add.

And which ones infringe on the parent's right? What about if a parent tells the child not to eat chocolate but the child goes trick-or-treating and someone gives them a chocolate bar, which they subsequently eat? Has the gift of a chocolate bar infringed on the parent's right to raise their child as they see fit? You say "clearly" but that does not constitute a justification or proof. Cyanide is a life-altering drug because consuming it almost certainly means death. You could argue that everything you consume is life-altering since it changes in some way, no matter how minute, your life. In other words, "life-altering" is not especially meaningful. What if the parent is not around, the child needs urgent surgery and/or the doctor wants to give him morphine. In this case must they wait for the parent to arrive even if that means the child will die, or suffer excruciating pain? You're implicitly making an analogy between sex and consuming illegal drugs. I think that's false because the two acts are very different. The analogy might be less false if the adult was actually putting the drugs into the body of the child, for example if he was administering an injection.

I'm not finding where she talked about this. I see some articles from ARI about parental rights but I don't think AR wrote those. Let's posit that a parent has the right to raise their child as they see fit. Does that make illegal all interactions between non-parental adults and children that are not explicitly approved by one or both parents? What if the parent told the child not to take things from strangers but the parent allowed the child, through intention or neglect, to come into contact with a drug dealer, who was unaware of this parental order, and the child defied the parent's order, accepting drugs and subsequently voluntarily consuming them? Which right of whom has been violated and exactly when?

Here is a summary of the 11 arguments presented in this thread for the regulation of "dangerous, addictive drugs". Please accept my apologies for any misinterpretations, oversights or mis-attributions. - There is no right to to harm others by selling substances which kill and which create physical dependence. [HH] - Allowing dangerous, addictive drugs to be sold freely to adults would create severe social and medical problems that should be minimized. [HH] - Legalizing puts a "stamp of approval" on it. [GS] - Smoking pot is not something we should be encouraging our children to do, IMO. [GS] - It's a violation of rights when dealers involve children in the drug trade. [MSK] - Drugs such as these certainly are not acting in one's rational self-interest. [Kat] - Drug use can scar a person for life. [GS] - Lots of social problems come with drug use. [GS] - Innocent children might suffer devastating "negative psychological effects" from witnessing the horrific physical and mental damages that drugs can do to addicts. [Jonathan] - During the manufacturing process, harmful traces of drugs, drug-making chemicals and by-products are very likely to leak onto others' properties and into their air spaces. [Jonathan] - A child's brain is permanently damaged by illegal drug use. [GS] True of other, legal substances - Allowing dangerous, addictive drugs to be sold freely to adults would create severe social and medical problems that should be minimized. [HH] - Drug use can scar a person for life. [GS] - Lots of social problems come with drug use. [GS] - Drugs such as these certainly are not acting in one's rational self-interest. [Kat] The same could be said about alcohol but it is legal. Do these persons wish to ban alcohol? Unproven or Imprecise - It's a violation of rights when dealers involve children in the drug trade. [MSK] - A child's brain is permanently damaged by illegal drug use. [GS] Arbitrary or Irrelevant: So what?! - There is no right to to harm others by selling substances which kill and which create physical dependence. [HH] - Legalizing puts a "stamp of approval" on it. [GS] - Smoking pot is not something we should be encouraging our children to do, IMO. [GS] Reportedly Sarcastic - Innocent children might suffer devastating "negative psychological effects" from witnessing the horrific physical and mental damages that drugs can do to addicts. [Jonathan] - During the manufacturing process, harmful traces of drugs, drug-making chemicals and by-products are very likely to leak onto others' properties and into their air spaces. [Jonathan]

And just what do you base this claim of a right of a parent to raise their children on?

I don't think the scientific evidence exists to substantiate your claim that any illegal drug use by a minor will cause permanent brain damage. The burden of proof is on you. What consent is required in order to provide a gift of something to a minor? Drug Dealer gives drugs to boy which can be used on a voluntary basis to cause self-harm. Scoutmaster gives a knife to boy which can be used on a voluntary basis to cause self-harm. Carpenter gives a hammer to boy which can be used on a voluntary basis to cause self-harm. Writer gives a sharp pen to boy which can be used on a voluntary basis to cause self-harm. How are these "false" analogies? In each case an object is given to a minor. Said object has the potential to be used by the boy to harm himself. Will you say the difference is the purpose of each object? Each individual defines their purpose for any given object. A dollop of lead may be a poison to you and a paperweight to me. A knife may be a weapon to you but a harmless letter-opener to me. An ounce of an illegal narcotic may be pleasure for one person and unthinkable to another.

How does giving a kid an addictive drug constitute mutilation? I think it's a stretch to call giving a kid cocaine or heroin mutilation. You might get a foot in the door if you say that long-term use of the drug may cripple the child's mind. And even so, consuming the drug, unless forced by the drug dealer or some fraud is used, is entirely voluntary. Assuming the drug dealer isn't saying it's candy and doesn't have a gun to the boy's head, how is offering drugs to a child any different than offering them a pen-knife or a hammer or a really sharp pen? And assuming there is no difference do you also advocate sending out the posse after scoutmasters, carpenters and writers who share the tools of their trade with minors?

That's nice but I'd like to understand exactly whose rights have been violated by whom when and how in Michael's scenario. Er... no one's. Everybody gets a hearing. The kids were handed over to Kid Charity temporarily for help. Michael's complaint resulted in an arrest warrant, but that doesn't mean Dealer D or anyone else will be convicted of anything. I can't guess what he might be charged with. Aggravated battery and child abuse? Extortion? It's up to the Grand Jury to indict, then another jury of twelve to convict, etc. He has the presumption of innocence in his favor. Long road ahead before anybody might be punished. And punishment is a dicey thing. The very worst I can do under the Freeman's Constitution is a decree of 'outlaw.' We'll have to talk about this further sometime. Hard to conceive that the purpose of law is primarily to restrain government (death squads in Brazil, for instance). W. We're talking about the same thing in different ways. In Michael's scenario the drug dealer entices the kids into taking drugs. In yours the drug dealer is taken into custody and his life is in jeopardy. Why? Whose rights did the drug dealer violate, when and how? And why are you sending someone to capture him dead or alive (essentially)? Yeah sure drugs = bad and all that, but what precisely has the drug dealer done wrong? And don't tell me "he gave drugs to kids", that's not an answer. I'd like to know what rights of whom have been violated because I don't think it's entirely obvious. Thanks.

Or is it because law enforcement is too lax even to the point of non-existence? [Never been to Brazil, so I have no idea.] That's what I see in Colombia. Police presence on the streets is minimal. That and crappy/malevolent parenting are responsible for a lot of these kids-getting-mixed-up-with-bad-adults problems I see here.

Death is not an [ill] effect of life. It is a part of life. Death is an effect of something going wrong in life. Death is the effect of an accident, initiation of force, failure of a vital organ, etc. We're talking about effects, which require respective causes Cause: Eat A Big Mac. Effect: You gain weight and your health declines proportionately. Cause: Stab yourself in the heart Effect: Death Cause: Exist / be alive / be born Effect: Think / Feel / Sense Time (in the form of currency) and aspects of my health. Of course not. I eat healthy meals prepared at home with a Domino's pizza or a juicy steak eaten out thrown in on the weekends.