KitemanSA wrote:I've sometimes thought that kids should be allowed EITHER a driving licence, or a drinking licence, but not both until they have handled the first for about 4 years without incident.
Hmmm.
I think a drinking/pot license is a reasonable Idea. (At least I am not advised of any bad consequences of it. If they exist, they will of course manifest should the idea ever be tried.)
Ahh, but that is still regulation. And it is argued here by a few, that Government regulation is bad, it breeds illegal activity. And I fully agree. Given any rule, someone is going to try and break it. They do this based on their own selfish wants. They do not stop to think about the effect on the community, in the short or long. I guess you could say without this concept, what is the point of having a community? Is it not a group with agreed upon principles and limits. It does seem to me sometimes that folks are arguing for an Anarchistic approach. I would offer if that is the desire, then to go buy some land or squat in the wilds of Alaska or Iran, and call it good, and then leave the rest of us that think all should 'do no harm to others' is more or less a good idea.
I am sure you are familiar with the word "optimization." In any system you are going to have some losses. In automobiles, we settle for throwing away 4/5ths of the energy released to propel them. Electric motors only waste about 5% of their energy.
The idea is to utilize a method that optimizes parameters with some thought to priority. Allowing a legal market for pot will maximize legal users while minimizing illegal users. Make the effort to do something illegal too much trouble, and you will effectively null the bulk of it out.
How much of the drug market in the United States deals with cigarettes? (as a commodity, not as an occasional thing.)
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Electric motors only waste about 5% of their energy.
Minor quibble that does not take from your point: The high end of "Premium-Efficiency" class motors run at about 93-96%. To get above 95, would be big HP 4 pole designs. Normally "Premium" efficiency runs about 85-90% for the most used 4 pole Design A & B HP's. @ pole and 6 pole track in a little lower.
You can get to 98% efficiency, but that is not a normally seen motor. (4 pole, couple hundred HP)
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Ok. Mostly useless to post that. But I am sure somebody was wondering about motor efficiencies...
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
I agree with the idea of searching for a line to draw, with better placement thatn the one wwe have now. But I will never agree to erasing the line. Too many idiots out there, and my kids deserve a chance to grow up enough to manage their own risks, rather than have some selfish moron take the opportunity for them by making bad use of drugs choices.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
ladajo wrote:I agree with the idea of searching for a line to draw, with better placement thatn the one wwe have now.
Default social contract. Make it default contract that adults cannot sell or contrive to provide intoxicating substances, ANY intoxicating substance?) to minors without the minor's guardian's approval. Make it default contract that adults who allow their children to indulge are held totally responsible for any sharing of the intoxicant etween their child and any other child.
In cases where adults prove they are not sufficiently responsible to handle their intoxicant (pain med in MSimon's parlance), take them to court and have them declared legal minors for that purpose for a default number of years.
COMMON LAW, not legislation. Responsible citizenry, not jack-booted thuggery. Tort cases, not criminal cases. It is so much more civilized.
Works pretty good for commercial purposes; why not social?
That is all great. And with those rules comes those who will break them. And, those who will help them break them because it is profitable.
The commerical system is rife with corruption and cheating. It is not the perfect example you paint it to be.
The other big difference that you are ignoring in your comparison and concepts is that drugs mess wiht cognitive function in a direct physical way. And, this disruption can be permanent.
So how do you posit that folks with disrupted cognitive function can be trusted to make rational unselfish choices that will not harm others?
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
ladajo wrote: That is all great. And with those rules comes those who will break them. And, those who will help them break them because it is profitable.
The commerical system is rife with corruption and cheating. It is not the perfect example you paint it to be.
Let me restate another of my posts on this general topic. "UTOPIA IS NOT AN OPTION"! I reject your dismissal of this "because it isn't perfect". Nothing is "perfect". But then, when was the last time you heard of a drive by shooting to allow a Liquor Store on a corner? Oh, wait, during PROHIBITION. Funny coincidence there, no?
ladajo wrote: The other big difference that you are ignoring in your comparison and concepts is that drugs mess wiht cognitive function in a direct physical way. And, this disruption can be permanent.
So how do you posit that folks with disrupted cognitive function can be trusted to make rational unselfish choices that will not harm others?
Did you READ my prior statements? If someone demonstrates an inability to be responsible, they can be legally declared a minor (or non-compis mentis, or whatever the condition is). But that doesn't mean you throw them into jail, just use such mechanisms as society has to protect itself from minors and minors from those who would prey upon their innocence.
And, again, once you impose controls, "treat them as minors", there will be those who seek to break the controls, and you are back on the path we have now.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Betruger wrote:I look at it long term. Eventually we get past scarcity - Mr Fusion and Drexler@home's. Why do your or I need government? Ceteris paribus, only because of my (as an average contemporary of ours) irresponsibility:
The implications of everyone being self sufficient and therefore (with not much more than 10yrs, just a small fraction of their life if done the hard way - autodidactic) perfectly capable of building their own space ship and settling down elsewhere than Earth, are just huge in terms of "national security". It means everyone's got cosmic space to play with. If you add technology as it ought to be by then, it's almost inevitably dangerous enough to get something on the order of national govts' attention.
Other than that, I see no need for continued government once we're past scarcity. There is no innate need to hurt others nor to be told how to live if it hurts no one else. It's only because of how rotten social life still is, here and now, that people go feral.
So with that rambling (nearly 35 hours without sleep, sorry) tangent/illustration out of the way, the distant but contiguous objective IMO is clearly the abolition of the need for government. Government is nothing but a shackle on Man's arms and feet. That Man is also shackled from genuine freedom by his irresponsibility, at this point in time, is no justification for perpetuating government as if it were sine qua non to civilization... We deserve better. Sint ut sunt, aut non sint.
The analogy to current record industry and MPAA fat cats' myopia with regards to how inevitable free-flowing digital data is going to get sooner than later is clear, and is similar also to middle-easterners apparent inability to see beyond the Time of Petrol. Inevitably we're going to get past scarcity and with that the need for the bondage-of-labor with the rest of the planet that's imposed on almost everyone on the planet for the sake of getting to post-scarcity... And then what? No change in government? That's just not gonna work, not when people are potentially, effectively as free from society's impositions as electrons from a nucleus whose charge was magically snuffed.
Sorry again if the above's clear as mud. Impact with pillow in T- 60 seconds.
That governments will not only persist in ruling in a post-scarcity society, but will actually try to prevent the development of the technologies that make such post-scarcity possible, is the surest indication that Murray Rothbard was correct. Governments are inherently criminal enterprises, plain and simple. They do not create wealth themselves. Any human institution that does not create wealth is parasitical.
This is why the space frontier is necessary. Not only the solar system, but the stars as well. We need the ability to get far enough away that Earth's governments cannot interfere in our own activities, dreams, and goals. Only then will we be truly free.
That's almost exactly how it appears to me. Almost, because the future is deep enough (foggy enough) that there might be some fundamental change in human behavior at some point. Even if it only means that govt will not oppose post-scarcity but find some other way to keep its tentacles on people.
ladajo wrote:And, again, once you impose controls, "treat them as minors", there will be those who seek to break the controls, and you are back on the path we have now.
Nope. One is based on recognition and protection of people's rights and the other is based on prohibition and suppression of people's rights.
Neither will produce utopia, but the first will be a WHOLE lot nicer to live in.
kurt9 wrote:
That governments will not only persist in ruling in a post-scarcity society, but will actually try to prevent the development of the technologies that make such post-scarcity possible, is the surest indication that Murray Rothbard was correct. Governments are inherently criminal enterprises, plain and simple. They do not create wealth themselves. Any human institution that does not create wealth is parasitical.
This is why the space frontier is necessary. Not only the solar system, but the stars as well. We need the ability to get far enough away that Earth's governments cannot interfere in our own activities, dreams, and goals. Only then will we be truly free.
I think it is the nature of humanity to take their destructive nature with them. Rest assured, wherever Humans exist, there will be a government there also.
We can only hope that it will be less troublesome than what we have now.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
ladajo wrote:And, again, once you impose controls, "treat them as minors", there will be those who seek to break the controls, and you are back on the path we have now.
Nope. One is based on recognition and protection of people's rights and the other is based on prohibition and suppression of people's rights.
Neither will produce utopia, but the first will be a WHOLE lot nicer to live in.
Are you losing your mind? Your posts of late have been suspect. Just asking, no insult intended.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)
Disturbingly one-sided TV show promotes euthanizing children with disabilities
Taking Mercy, an edition of the Global TV program “16x9” in Canada, concerns a mother, Annette Corriveau, who wants her children with disabilities to be killed by euthanasia. The show also features Robert Latimer, the man who killed his daughter Tracy in 1993. Tracy had Cerebral Palsy. The show speaks to pro-euthanasia ethicist Arthur Schaefer who suggests that Robert Latimer should have been given “mercy.” Schaefer also suggests that Corriveau should simply stop feeding her children, but Corriveau says she does not wish to starve her children to death.
Further to that, while so many people say that euthanasia is about “choice” and has little or nothing to do with people with disabilities, the Corriveau story should awaken people to the reality that “choice” is the banner that is used to open the door to euthanasia. Soon after we will begin deciding who lives and who dies, in the same way as the Netherlands has accepted the Groningen Protocol which are the rules that must be followed in order to euthanize children with disabilities.
