2010:warmest year ever since records began

[MSimon]

I would charge the woman as an accessory. You don't want to be pregnant, don't make that choice!

It doesn't matter what you would do. The left is not interested in restricting abortion and on the right you have misdemeanor murder for the doctor and the woman goes free.

Given that political landscape - what are the odds of laws being added?

But I do love the abortion wars. While the stupids on the right are busy fighting those wars the left is stealing us blind. Way to keep your eye on the ball guys.

I might note that abortions go up in difficult economic times. Smart politics on the right eh?

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... tives.html

I think it is past time to retire the "Tax and Spend but I'm against Abortion" Republicans. A party that favors fiscal sanity and other wise leaves the people alone to make their own (good and bad) choices is the American way. Unless you believe government can make people moral. And how is that Drug War working out for you?

The cry of statists everywhere: "just let me get my hands on the government guns and I'll fix things." And when things don't get fixed the answer is always the same: "I just need more money and more government guns."

BTW my favorite anti-abortion group is not interested in government solutions (smart people - in fact some of them are friends of mine):

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... itics.html

Sooner or later moral socialism fails just as economic socialism does. For the same reason. Government can no more make us moral than it can make us prosperous.

I have nothing against moral crusades. Done in the private sector. It is when the moralists get the bright idea that with he help of government guns they can FORCE people to do the right thing.

Not in America. We are a nation full of people willing to break laws we don't agree with. Which is why drug prohibition with 95% compliance is such a failure.

And Mr. D - if prohibition is working how did the folks you were shocked by get their drugs?

Nice prohibition poem:

Prohibition is an awful flop.
We like it.
It can't stop what it's meant to stop.
We like it.
It's left a trail of graft and slime,
It won't prohibit worth a dime,
It's filled our land with vice and crime.
Nevertheless, we're for it.

Franklin P. Adams, 1931

[MSimon]

I'd love to hear some major Moral Socialist come to his senses and say: "You know, what I want is of such intrinsic goodness that I don't need any government help to promote these ideas. And not only do I not need any help - I don't want any. There doesn't have to be a law. Social pressure can do the job. After all look at what changes to cultural attitudes have done for tobacco consumption. The only people who still smoke that stuff are hard core schizophrenics."

[MSimon]

Well they are on about how the embryo screams during its demise so obviously a death penalty offense. And obviously the woman involved is an accomplice so by the logic of murder she would be subject to the same penalties as the doctor.

There is no statute of limitations on murder. So there are 20 million or so women we need to find and gas. Or inject. Or hang. We can start combing the medical records.

No. No. No. They say. We can't do that. It would be grotesque. So they come up with a penalty that is more akin to misdemeanor manslaughter. And the woman goes free.

So I say: it is not a very serious crime then even if we make it a crime.

No. No. No. No. It is very serious. You don't understand. It is not about strict logic. It is how we feel.

Well that was what I thought all along.

So what is your beef with those who feel differently? Uhhhhhhhhhhh.......

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... minds.html

[KitemanSA]

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

Not necessarily. They may be TRYING to do good. Or do you mean that the government doing JUST its legitimate job is "good"?

I mean some people are intentionally trying to characterize the government doing it's job as "do good" meddling. They argue that the government prohibiting drugs is similar to liberal social meddling, but I argue that it is a normal and proper role for the government to perform, and is no different from enforcing speed limits.

But exceeding the speed limit is not "illegal" per se, not is it a crime in fact. People exceed the 55 mph, even the 70mph speed limits by HUGE amounts, on live TV with regularity (Indy 500 comes to mind). And you are quite free to develop your own patch of road and exceed the speed limit just as much a you wish!

Speed limits are an attempt (questionably executed) by government to do one of the few things it should legitimately do; develop default social contract. It is perfectly proper for government to announce that "in the absense of specific social contract to the contrary, this is the contract that the courts will use in deciding issues wrt anyone who uses this road". To the degree that government owns the roads, (WAY TOO HIGH in my not so humble opinion) they have the "right" to come to a voluntary agreement with those who wish to make use of their road. What makes it "right" is the voluntary nature of the agreement.

[KitemanSA]

Nope. Wrong is not related to probability of hurting someone. It is involving a person in an action involuntarily, and ONLY that. Increasing the probability of hurting someone is potentially BAD, not wrong.

I think you need to rethink your definition. Firing a gun into the sky is wrong because you've increased the probability of hurting someone. It is a crime (and morally wrong) whether you hurt someone or not.

If I am floating in the mddle of the pacific inside a fleet of a thousand people who are there volunatrily to participate in a giant game of "Russian Roulette" which consists of each person in turn firing one shot into the air, thereby increasing the chance that someone gets hurt, have I committed a crime?

Of course not. We have all participated in a voluntary (if not too bright) action. Not WRONG. Bad perhaps, but not wrong. Not wrong, not a crime.

[KitemanSA]

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.

This is your primary lack of understanding. The distinction between the two IS black and white (actually bad and wrong).

That is your subjective perception. I think whether or not something is a crime and wrong is highly dependent on the intentions of whomever commits the act. Throwing a rock off a cliff is inconsequential unless you know that there are people below likely to be hit by it and killed or injured.

If you try to think with indistinct words, you have indistinct thoughts. For your own clarity of thought, MAKE A DISTINCTION. I don't much care HOW you distinguish them, but DO SO. Then, when we converse, if I know how you use words DISTINCTLY, I can translate between YOU speak and ME speak and we can understand each other.

I have harped remorsely about how I define words so that you can have a chance of understanding my clarity of thought on this matter.

[KitemanSA]

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.

Maybe soon you will recognize that favoring the drug war is a similar mistake.

Down with drugs. Legalize them!

As it stands currently, it looks like the only mistake is how we are fighting the drug war. I think we need a lot more death penalty for drug dealers. Especially foreign ones.

Do you really believe that it is moral to kill people because you have a disagreement with them? If so, then I guess you volunteer for drive-by shootings and all the other ills of the drug war. I am torn between hoping those ills visit you soon and you waking up.

[KitemanSA]

Hmmm. Pointing a gun at me does not harm either. I may percieve a potential for harm so I have every right to point out that I don't volunteer to be threatened like that. I have every right to inform you that if you continue to point your gun at me I will take it as permission to do what I choose to stop you from involving me involuntarily. I would also support a uniform social contract to make that the default condition. But there has been no harm until you pull the trigger or hit me with it or whatever.

It is currently a crime to point a gun at someone. It is called "Feloniously pointing a firearm" and you can go to prison for it.

Yet again you fail to make the important distinction. It is not a crime because it is felonious. It is felonious because it is felonious. And yes they can jail you for committing a felony, but that doesn't make it a CRIME i.e. WRONG, per-se.

[KitemanSA]

Now I think I see one of our points of contention in this discussion. I count it as immoral AND illegal, to increase the risk of danger (either recklessly or intentionally) to innocents, while you only count it as immoral and a crime if someone is actually HURT.

So I give you again, the example of firing a gun into the air. (in a city) I contend the act is both immoral and criminal. (even if no one gets hurt.)

I gave you a similar case above and have tried to lead you to a correct answer. Maybe now you will twig to the reality.

Sometimes you make statements like you are finally getting it, then you make a statement like this. To continue to try or to give you up as a lost cause?

[KitemanSA]

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.

Some people intentionally mis-use words to hide their wrong-doing. That doesn't make the real meaning the same. Borrowing, the temporary, authorized use of something not your own, is NOT stealing. And saying you "borrowed" something you stole does not make it ok.

Sometimes you need to look at the deeper meaning, not the surface obfuscation!

I know this from personal experience. If you give someone the keys to your car to go get some burgers and come back, and they take off with it and go on a two day joy ride, the cops won't do a frickin thing for 48 hours. They refer to this as "Unauthorized taking", and it is a misdemeanor if they even bother to prosecute it.

But you know in your heart that the joyrider did you WRONG. You did NOT volunteer to have him take your car for that long. He involved you in that taking involuntarily. He stole from you the minute he did not come back with your car.

You experienced how the government screwed up there. So why don't you get it that the government could be screwing up royally wrt the drug war?

[KitemanSA]

To the degree that parent is neglecting tse's responsibility to the child, that parent should be held culpable for any harm, no matter what the cause; drugs, alchohol, the Jerry Springer Show.

Except for the drugs, they very likely wouldn't have behaved in this manner.

Do you have data to support this opinion? Many adults are just delinquent in their duties, having nothing to do with "illegal drugs".

No, don't go looking for it because despite my curiosity it doesn't change the facts. It is not the drugs per-se that is wrong, it is the injureous neglect of the responsibilty. Effectively, it can be said that under common law (and should probably be written into an unambigous default social contract) that the parant has a contract with the child to provide righteous and good guidance for the child's development into adulthood. Until adulthood, the child is assumed to volunteer for that guidance. To the degree the parent's actions are bad for the child that parent is violating the voluntary nature of the agreement and is doing the child wrong. At that point they should be subject to criminal sanctions.

[KitemanSA]

Yet you're still not explaining to me how using a narcotic to interfere with your normal judgment constitutes a sapient decision.

Sorry, don't get your point here.

[KitemanSA]

[/quote]

In any case, i'm not sure i'm following you. I think you are saying it's okay for mental patients (people who are mentally ill) to play in the street or something.

Define "ok".
If you define it as "good" then heck no its not good, don't be silly!
If you define it as "right", (ignoring for this sub-thread the wrong-doing to the drivers) then yes.
So, you tell me what you mean by "ok" and the answer will be one of those two. Define it differently and who knows!

Edited in an attempt to clarify the two choises.

It didn't help.

It has long been a principle of law that people who are "Non compos mentis" cannot make decisions in their own best interest, and it is common nowadays for the court to appoint a guardian for them. Your thinking would overturn this practice, and very likely result in a lot of misery for mentally ill people.

Actually, it would not. Your first statement explains the situation. You still don't get my thinking so you can't think things thru clearly. The point I have been trying to make to you is the distinction between good, and right. Just because an activity is bad for someone doesn't mean they are doing wrong if they partake. It is not WRONG for the "non compos mentis" person to "play in traffic" per-se (again ignoring the involuntary involvement of the drivers). Certainly that NCM person should not be put into jail for it! Should they? "Playing in traffic" (being used as a notion of dangerous to SELF and not others) is potentially bad, but not wrong.

I suppose we could save a lot of trouble by giving them access to a room with a pull cord that releases poison gas on them if they should choose to pull it. Give them enough time and exposure to such a thing, and it would be nearly a certainty. After all, if they pull the cord (not knowing what it will do) that's still "free will" isn't it? (at least the way I think you and others are defining it.)

So now you WANT to be bad to these poor unfortunates? I didn't think you were THAT cruel. And no, it is not "free will". An action is voluntary if in the absense of force, fraud, or coersion, the person responsibly chooses to participate and accept the consequences. Placing a NCM in such a place would constitute fraud against them, as they are due good and righteous guidance from their guardian but not recieving it.

[KitemanSA]

t;] Embarking on drug use is transformational for many people.

So is college and the armed forces. Should we ban them?

Those are positive transformations. Becoming an addict is a negative transformation, making these people into parasites on the productive members of society.

As stated by a previous poster, their use of drugs was a POSITIVE transformational activity. And many folks wash out of the armed forces or flunk out of college to their detriment for having tried, quite negative.

At this point your argument appears to be "it is wrong because I don't like it". Something of a solipsist are you?

[MSimon]

Kiteman,

I like to get my politics from engineers. Engineers are schooled in "What can possibly go wrong? In truth just about everything." While the general electorate dreams of "Laws? We just pass them and the words (and government guns) will give us what we are dreaming of." You can't bust that kind of thinking with reason. It is pure faith.

There are many who think that if you put the word "prohibited" in a law that it actually prohibits. The MAGIC power of words. Once the words have filled your head reality can't intrude. Which is why notorious junkie William Burroughs suggests "cutting the word lines."

* Cut word lines — Cut music lines — Smash the control images — Smash the control machine — Burn the books — Kill the priests — Kill! Kill! Kill!
o The Soft Machine (1961)

But cutting the word lines is hard. You have to want to do it because our nature militates in the other direction. Religion takes advantage if this. Scientism works this game. Political movements do this. One of my favorites on the right is "abortion is murder". Until you dig down and find that most folks who mouth this don't actually believe it. What I came up with that the righties actually agree on is: misdemeanor manslaughter for the doctor and the woman goes free. Hardly the pre-meditated murder with the infliction of pain that is screamed so loudly on street corners.

As to the drug war we are at the Soviet Union end times. About 75% say it isn't working and 65% say we should keep at it.