2010:warmest year ever since records began

[KitemanSA]

Wizwom said that people who are mentally ill have a right to do what they want too. I provided the example of the autistic kid who was prevented from running out into high speed traffic. The fact that it was a kid involved is irrelevant to the point, unless you are going to argue that autistic kids should be protected while autistic adults should not.

Somehow I don't think you are going to make that argument.

You are mixing up more than one subtopic thread.

Mayhaps, but perhaps you haven't achieved the necessary understanding to connect the sub-threads.
For the following discussion, I choose to take your statement about running into traffic to illustrate the doing of something potentially dangerous to ones-self.

Rule # 1: People (all sapient beings) have the right to voluntary action. PERIOD!

So; yes, the autistic child has the right to run out into traffic if he wants to (ignoring for the moment the violation of the driver's right to voluntary action). So does the autistic adult. (I shall now wait a second for you to stop screaming).

What you have to ask is "what does voluntary mean?"
For our purposes, let us leave it as "to knowingly and responsibly accept the outcome of an action". Children, though they have the right to do a bunch of things, seldom have the capacity to volunteer. This is essentially what being a "child" means. So when an adult gets a child to do something like... (choose your own bad thing for children); the child has done NOTHING wrong. The child has every right to do that bad thing. The adult on the other hand has almost certainly done something wrong to the child as it is doubtful that the child had the capacity to volunteer for that bad thing. Thus the adult has involved a child involuntarily, the definition of wrong.

What is fundamentally right does not change from person to person (voluntary action). Whether a specific incident is right or wrong depends on the state of the "voluntary involvement".

[Diogenes]

But it doesn't matter what the CAUSE of that delinquency is, be it crack, marijuana, of the Jerry Springer Show. The crime is the failure to meet the obligation. Prosecute the CRIME! The vice should NEVER be an excuse.

The crime is the failure to meet the obligation? I don't think you've thought this through. A man out of work, or perhaps disabled, would be guilty of this, if the crime is defined in that way.

No one has an issue with someone who is trying to do what is right by their child. It is those who intentionally, or through reckless disregard for the welfare of their child that should be the recipient of the law's wrath!

AHA! You perhaps are beginning to get my point, sufficiently in fact to try quoting it back to me. You state "intentionally, or through reckless disregard", identifying that I did take an unfortunate shortcut in my prose. But what you have pointed out is that the person failing to meet the obligation "involves someone involuntarily", which is what makes it wrong. The action on someone involuntarily (or willful failure to act as obliged) is wrong. But other than respecting your and others rights, I have no obligation unto you or others, and thus my use of drugs, not involving YOU or others involuntarily, is not wrong. Given that it is not wrong, it is not a crime and should NOT be a felony.

I thought we agreed on that point many posts back? (Or perhaps it was someone else. You are all starting to run together from my perspective.)

Sure. No dependents, no influence on others, knock yourself out. (literally!)

[KitemanSA]

So yes. As a former communist and now libertarian I have learned my lesson. Less government is better government.

Agreed, except when it is a role which ONLY government can and should perform. Defense is such a role, as is law enforcement. I do not want a private company performing law enforcement. It MUST be done by government.

Wow, you need to look around you a bit. IFAICT, law inforcement in this country is performed PRIMARILY by private companies. I don't know the exact numbers and am not really interested enough to do the necessary research, but it would surprise the heck out of me if there weren't many private cops, perhaps even dozens, for every public one.

[Diogenes]

You seem to have made a great breakthru above, so maybe you can remain able to think and learn.

My concern is to address the bad results that affect innocent people. If there are no (or few) bad results to innocents, I have no objections. As with alcoholics, some people can take it with no ill results, and some people can't. If the law can sort the harmless people from the destructive ones, the same purpose can be accomplished without banning everyone.

Wow, perhaps another breakthru!
Please understand that I COMPLETELY support your desire to address the "bad" results that effect innocent people. Absolutely, 100% agreed. The question is how.

Now I see why I thought i'd already responded on this. You are reading my old posts while I am making new ones.

I suggested one idea. Assume people can handle something until they demonstrate that they can't. then put them on a list to be interdicted. It's a risky methodology, but it would seem that it could achieve the result of separating abusers from what they abuse.

Rule # 1: People have the right to voluntary action (morality, right/wrong). Corrolary: it is wrong to involve someone in a action involuntarily. (Please note that if someone wrongs you they have already voluntarily engaged in the action, so your response, directly or thru government does not violate their right to voluntary action. This is why government can achieve good results from punishing crimes.)
Rule # 2: You can't do GOOD (ethics, best, better, good, bad, worse, worst)) by doing WRONG.

I'm having trouble following what you are trying to say here.

So here is the issue. Government keeps trying to do good

I pointed this out earlier. The Government just doing it's JOB is "good."

by making personal actions that are bad for the folks that do them in felonies and treating those bad things like they are wrong. But they are not "wrong".

They are if they increase the probability of hurting someone. (Which they usually do.) Remember, a drunk driver is arrested even if he's harmed no one. He's arrested because he recklessly increased the danger level to people and property.

And in treating them like they are wrong, the government is involving people in an action involuntarily, which is wrong in itself. To try to do good, the government is doing wrong. See rule #2. This is why government cannot achieve good results from punishing vices.

That is a non sequitur. The one thing does not follow from the other. If the initial premise is wrong, the subsequent conclusions are irrelevant.

If the government were to instead return those actions to their correct condition (vice, not crime) and treat them like vices, the appropriate reactions can be instituted. And the appropriate penalties can be instituted when their vices get away from them and they commit crimes as a result.

PS: Rule #3: Like all toxic substances, government programs are subject tot eh J-Curve!

The difference between "Vice" and "Crime" is another one of those artificial perception boundaries which I am always going on about. The terms are not black and white, but a range between the two. They are "Fuzzy", not clear and distinct.

I know people love to compartmentalize their notions into clearly defined boundaries, but like the law, the edges are not sharp, they are blurred.


Borrowing, Unauthorized taking, stealing. They all overlap in terms of meaning, but not necessarily in terms of the act. The differences are dependent on the outcomes.

[KitemanSA]

While gender-reliance does cause real and demonstrable communications problems for the language... that particular solution is frickin' lame.

Perhaps, but it walks, and I haven't seen another that does!

For one thing, if the example you give involved myself instead then the proposed neologism wouldn't take into account several of my relatives who don't seem to be sapient...

Well, if they truly aren't sapient, then the word is "it", and then "its" owner can volunteer to have "it" shot.

[Diogenes]

No doubt, but it is only the result of people being made aware of the danger, and look how long it took and how many lives were snuffed out early before people figured it out. Also, don't discount the effect of the taxes, regulation, and counter advertising which has been waged against tobacco.

Aha grasshopper, again you begin to see the light.
Treat drugs as the vice they are, as you treat the vice "tobacco", and good things can happen with drugs use problems too!

One does not need to label one thing a "Vice" and the other thing a "Crime" to be aware that a properly tailored campaign against them might bear fruit.

I used to favor the US embargo of Cuba, but years ago I realized that the quickest way to bring down that government would be to let the people know what kind of stuff they could have, and what kind of lives they could have if they just over threw their government.

The fastest way to impart that knowledge in a meaningful way is to trade with them.

As for the campaign against tobacco, it appears to be slowly choking it to death. I am wondering if the government will eventually stop for the sake of the money. If not, and tobacco is wiped out through taxing, regulation and adverse advertising, then it will prove that drug usage CAN be wiped out. (actually, we already know that. Some countries have pretty much wiped it out.) I opined earlier, that a similar campaign against alcohol might have worked where a sudden prohibition did not.

[KitemanSA]

An example, just for kicks. Children do not have the right to vote. Should a child attempt to do so, he is just shewed away.

Actually, no one has the right to vote. They have a legal franchize or not. Remember, I recognize that "Right" and "Wrong" are moral absolutes. If it is not right, it is wrong. And what defines the distinction is the fact that people (sapient beings if you want to get inclusive) have the right to voluntary action. Period.

Now I will watch as you sputter and huff and bring up arguements ethical and legal.

I like your use of the term "Sapient". It refers to the possession of sapience: "the ability of an organism or entity to act with judgment."

Love it!

Danka!
Technically, it is "act with wisdom" but I do agree that they basically result in the same state.

In the movie "Ridicule" (excellent french movie) the main character (Le Marquis Grégoire Ponceludon de Malavoy) is put into a contest with a table full of other people and they are all challenged to be witty before the soup arrives. (Because there are 13, (un unlucky number) The loser must leave the table without being served.) Unbeknownst to him, the beautiful Madame de Blayac (his lover) starts paying footsie with his crotch. (because she is trying to prevent him from winning.) Needless to say, the man cannot concentrate because his judgment is being interfered with. When it comes his turn, he does poorly, and is ejected from the group.
He is told he must eat with the servants, to which another noble comments, "monsieur, one is known by the company he keeps." to which he responded, "Not at all. Judas kept excellent company. "

Excellent anecdote!

The point being, you cannot claim judgment when you are unable to exercise it. Taking substances which tamper with your judgment renders it inoperative.

In truth, I am not quite sure what your point is here. If you, while straight, choose to take the substance, that makes it voluntary, and you must be held culpable for adverse results that flow from your choice. However, if you DIDN'T choose to take it, you are not culpable. OK?

Another example. Ordinary rats will not stay in one place and push a button till they die. Install a wire into their brain's pleasure center, wire it to the button, let them see that pushing the button gives them pleasure, and many rats will push the button till they die.

Are you to claim they are exercising judgment?

Heck no. They are rats. They are NOT sapient. They are not expected to exercise judgement.

p.s. Did you enjoy my sputtering and huffing? I know I did!

You hid it well. You sounded almost normal!

[Diogenes]

This is a good general statement. My issue is that the broadness of it overlooks the fact that some personal actions have consequences that DO hurt others. It's the "big picture" view. In many ways we are like cells in a body. The notion that one cell can be infected with a virus, and that is only THAT cell's business overlooks the fact that that virus poses a threat to other cells as well.

Thank you.
I do not overlook the fact that people can do things that hurt others. And to the degree those others are hurt involuntarily, that is a crime, and can appropriately engage government solutions thru criminal prosecution.

There are situations wherein the t-cells and other immune cells go haywire and attack unoffending cells (drug war). These are diseases too, and it is GOOD to cure ones-self of these disease.

And of course there is the problem with analogies. Are you defining the virus as criminal activity or drug use? Trying to stay within the analog gets very difficult.

Analogies sometimes fall apart completely.

[KitemanSA]

What adverse effects could possibly affect a child, but not an adult? Dosage? Adults can overdose too.

Let me try one more time. The distinction is on the one hand, an adult doing something to himself (vice) or an adult doing to someone else involuntarily (crime).

And both are like children in their understanding of what they are tampering with.

Ok, maybe I am detecting your problem.
You seem to be saying that while high, the adult looses tse's ability to understand/volunteer. This makes tse a child for that period.

If the adult CHOOSES to undergo the alteration, that is tse's right, but said choice does not eliminate the culpabilty for and adverse results of said choice. If the adult is dosed by fraud/force/etc., then that temporary child is not culpable.

[Diogenes]

Driving under the influence is a felony. Injuring someone while doing it is a crime. See the difference?

Driving under the influence is a crime whether you injure someone or not. This concept relies on the principle that you have recklessly endangered others, and it is only through luck that none of them were injured. Merely putting people at threat, is a crime. Not just actually injuring them.

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this one for a while.

Your gun puts me in danger so by your argument you should be criminally prosecuted for owning a gun. I don't agree with you on that.

My gun is completely harmless unless I point it in your direction. The owning is benign, the pointing is the danger. If you wish to extend the analogy to drugs, owning a trunkfull will not harm anyone, it is the using that causes the problem. To further extend the analogy, owning a gun serves a beneficial purpose if it deters others from harming you. Owning a trunkfull of drugs which you never use, is completely pointless.

I would try to sooth this disagreement by noting that it is damned near impossible to be driving under the influence without outward and specific actions that involve others involuntarily. So the simple fact that someone is driving under the influence is not a crime, but the weaving and other such behavour that almost always goes along with it is.

Actually, you can be driving perfectly. If they stop you for a tail light, you're still busted. I have a friend who has long argued that drunk driving should be legal. The only thing which should be illegal is violating a traffic law. As long as you don't violate a traffic law, they shouldn't bother you.

It's actually a perspective with some merit, especially as I mentioned previously. Not everyone's blood/alcohol works the same way.

So my point is it is the involuntary interACTION that is the crime, not the condition that might create it.

Makes you wonder why people try to use being drunk as an excuse for bad behavior then.

[Diogenes]

Your mantra, grasshopper is "People have the right to voluntary Action. Therefore it is wrong to involve someone in an action involuntarily... ohmmm". Say that to yourself each night for 15 minutes before you sleep. When you understand it, let me know and I will provide your next mantra!

Master Po was blind too!

Master Po was blind, the grasshopper could not see. Open your inner eye grasshopper!

I think I need some LSD for that.

[Diogenes]

Yup, but if you are out in the middle of the Pacific and you can see that there is noone anywhere around, is firing your gun straight up a CRIMINAL act? It may be stupid, but not criminal. Doing it in a city becomes criminal to the degree it involves others involuntarily (e.g., comes down thru their roof without permission).

I agree, and now our analogies match exactly. Someone who cannot victimize anyone else, by accident or intent, can do whatever they want. So if you agree that addicts can be moved out of society, before they have children to hurt, then I see no objections to them becoming a full time lotus eater.

I understnd the word "victimize" to mean involving someone in a harmful action involuntarily. If they volunteer, they are not victims, they are participants. If that is your meaning, then I agree with most of your first statement. We may have a slight disagreement with the "accident" part. I mean, if a parent is caring for his child in a positive manner while under the influence, and a car come thru the wall and harms the child, that is an accident, but hardly the parent involving the child in it. With that caveat, we are approaching an agreement.

I am refering to the much more common condition in which the parent decides they would rather get high than work and bring home food, or buy clothes, or change diapers, or make sure the child eats, you know, stuff like that. Not to mention allowing the child to see the parent getting high, and thereby learning by example to follow in the parent's footsteps.

[KitemanSA]

To expand on that question, in this case, is using a drug a crime to you because it is morally wrong, ethically bad, or legally a felony?

B-7.... You sunk my battleship!

Battleship is a two dimensional plot system. Imagine the game with three dimensions. Now imagine it with four or more. All of the things you mention constitute components which sum to a vector. The vector's magnitude and direction are dependent upon the size of each component.
...
My objection to drug use is based on the summed components of all information which I have learned, and the perceived consequences thereof.

At last, we have drilled until we hit the crux of your mistake .

Morality is NOT a vector. It is a signum like function. There is no "right, righter, rightest". Things are EITHER "right" OR "wrong". See Rule # 2: You can't do GOOD by doing WRONG. It will, eventually, in all endevours, make your good intent lead to hell. It may take a while, indeed, for a short while the J-Curve may exert itself and it may APPEAR to be good, but eventually it will lead to hell.
________

What I have not yet been able to extract from the universe is an understanding of whether doing wrong is a negative multiplier or a negative space. By that I mean I am not sure whether it makes all efforts bad or whether it makes efforts turn out the opposite of the intent.

I do understand that you can't do good by doing wrong. It winds up bad. What I am not sure of is what happens when you try to do BAD while doing wrong. Does it succeed in doing bad or does it wind up good. There is so little observable data on this that I am not positive. There are few evil people (folks who INTEND to do bad). Most data is the result of well intentioned people who don't understand morality. I have some experience to suggest it actually produces a long term good effect. This may be why over the ages, evil people eventually lose out. I'm not sure though.

[Diogenes]

Absurd. Slavery is the violation of another's right to voluntary action in the extreme. Slavery is a CRIME, but was for many years not illegal. It's lack of illegality did NOT make it right. In the complete opposite, drug usage is a violation of NO-ONE except one-self. Drug use is NOT a crime, but for many years it HAS been illegal. That does NOT make it wrong. Night and day. Totally opposite. Sorry, maybe I was wrong. Maybe you CAN be that stupid?

As a question of Philosophy, legal or illegal is irrelevant. As a point of fact, slavery was legal at one time, and slaves weren't considered to be the equal of non slaves, legally or in any other regard.

The notion that all people are equal, regardless of race or creed, is in fact a relatively new attitude in human history, and it is actually a moral question. The people who maintained slavery, always objected to "Morality" being introduced into the legal system, but contrasted with Libertarians, it was just a different version of "Morality" that they were objecting to, one which most libertarians nowadays accept as valid, and so therefore have no objections to THIS "Morality" being imposed on everyone. (except TallDave, who has made it clear that he is consistent in his opposition to morality being imposed)

What I am saying, is by the rules of the day, slaves weren't regarded as full fledged "Persons" under the law, and so they didn't have the same rights as everyone else. The operative word is "Zeitgeist."

Again we get down to the basic question. Do you or do you not believe that "right" comes from law? If you answer yes, then we are on opposed sides of the big rift. To me, what is "right" IS. It is natural. You are endowed by your creator (God, your Sapient Parents, whatever you believe) with one un-alienable right. You, along with every other sapient being in the universe, have the right to voluntary action. (See Rule # 1).

Slaves had that right, they just didn't have the legal protection of it. Indeed, there was a legal SUPPRESSION of it. But slavery, the involuntary chattle ownership of one sapient being by another, is and always has been "wrong" no matter what it's legal status.

Regarding the opposition to or support of the imposition of "morality", the problem generally devolves to the fact that most folks use the term "morality" to mean "religious dogma" and I agree that I don't want your religious dogma placed on me. But there is natural law, and understanding of natural moral law is important to the long term survival of the human race.

I agree, but we need to keep that understanding of the natural law above the level of an instinctive reptilian brain search for pleasure. That is a throwback to an older time when men were beasts, and is not compatible with civilization where we must suppress some natural instincts to flourish. (personally, sometimes I doubt humanity is really up to the task, and it is only a fortunate accident that we've made it this far. )

[WizWom]

Diogenes: A criminal is someone who commits a crime; if something is legal it is not a crime. This is a tautology, because it is inherent in the definition of "criminal".

Furthermore, a private company should be able to hire whoever it likes, with whatever criteria it wants. It is their money, they should get to spend it how they like. Likewise, a customer should be allowed to do business with whoever they like, with whatever criteria they please. Rules forcing affirmative action, equal opportunity, and equal pay for "equal" work are damaging to the economic strength of nations, people and to the dignity of all involved. And, of course, such rules DO NOT WORK.

But, of course, all this is smoke and mirrors, thrown up because you've run out of arguments for maintaining the pointless war on (some) drugs.