[Psudo]

Jeff wrote:

Accually if we were going to legalize pot that's one thing the government should invest in is selling cheap vapourizers. No reason people can't smoke the stuff much more cleanly.

Why would government do that? Private industry loves a new market for manufactured goods.

It bothers me that you'd look to government authority on the production of pot vaporizers in the same moment that you deny government's authority to regulate pot use generally. To libertarians or authoritarians you look hypocritical, and to conservatives (me) you look wrong on both counts.

And thank you, Kjorteo, for your kind mentions of me in my absence.

[CanadianJeff]

Private industry may love a new market for goods but that doesn't mean those goods are going to be availble to the wider market. The more people this clean smoking equipment is availible to IF the government leagalized pot the less people we are going to see getting lung cancer and that can only be good for us all.

I'm just saying IF the government legalized the stuff it would be fantastic to see affordable methods of clean smoking. Right now Vapourizers are a few hundred dollars a peice for a good machine. Hardly affrodable to your average consumer.

[Psudo]

A new market means increased production, which lowers prices. Government doesn't have to be involved to bring any product to a wider market if there's demand.

Zipperfish wrote:

So your definition is easily twisted into tyranny. My definition can't be.

Your "self-harm is harmless" certainly can and I say will inherently be twisted, if not into tyranny than at least into a horrible society.

The libertarian protection of self-harm as a right carries with it no system for judging what should be, can be, or ought to be judged right or wrong by the liberated person. It demands that people be given all the freedom of choice with none of the personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions. In fact, in holding self-harm as a sacrosanct right, you make self-harm a noble cause that it's virtuous to pursue in the name of liberty. If there's a domestic dispute between the self-harmer and the loved one trying to get them to stop, who do you arrest? If the former, you lose the libertarian ideal; if the latter, the libertarian ideal becomes criminalization of treating human life as valuable.

What of harm of another with that other's consent? Two friends huffing together. Jeffery Dahmer killed and ate people with their consent so they could, in a very physical way, be together forever. Are these protected rights, too?

How should society handle the self-harmers who end up needing costly medical care: either to provide for them by charity and welfare programs (socialism), or end of the take-all-comers Emergency Room.

Any philosophy or ideology can be twisted into a nightmare society. Yours, however, actively promotes harm to people (themselves) as liberty. How can that be anything but harmful to the individuals it claims to be protecting?

[Zipperfish]

Quote:

The libertarian protection of self-harm as a right carries with it no system for judging what should be, can be, or ought to be judged right or wrong by the liberated person. It demands that people be given all the freedom of choice with none of the personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions. In fact, in holding self-harm as a sacrosanct right, you make self-harm a noble cause that it's virtuous to pursue in the name of liberty. If there's a domestic dispute between the self-harmer and the loved one trying to get them to stop, who do you arrest? If the former, you lose the libertarian ideal; if the latter, the libertarian ideal becomes criminalization of treating human life as valuable.

The freedom to do something is not the obligation to do something. It's about choice--this is what is so difficult to get through to the socialists--particularly the current crop of right-wing neo-socialists who seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that they stand for freedom.

What isn't self-harm? Driving a motorcycle certainly is, especially with no helmet. So is eating a cheeseburger. Playing soccer. Diving. Camping. Smoking a joint before the Pink Floyd concert. A lot of the fun things in life carry an element of risk of harm.

Quote:

What of harm of another with that other's consent? Two friends huffing together. Jeffery Dahmer killed and ate people with their consent so they could, in a very physical way, be together forever. Are these protected rights, too?

Jeffrey Dahmer did not kill and eat people with their consent. As I recall the police returned to his custody a boy who was desperately trying to escape his clutches. And if someone else kills you, it's hardly "self-harm" is it. Besides, what does killing and eating someone have to do with having a beer and a spliff with your buddies on the weekend? You seem to be trying some kind of reductio ad absurdum argument here, to force me into some kind of extreme position, but just because you stand up for freedom of choice of individuals doesn't mean that you are signing up to allow people to murder others as long as they have their "consent." Sorry, my position on the issue isn't that extreme. Extremism in any philosophy does not work in my opinion.

Quote:

How should society handle the self-harmers who end up needing costly medical care: either to provide for them by charity and welfare programs (socialism), or end of the take-all-comers Emergency Room.

I guess we would handle them the same way we handle them now. It's never an easy task for society dealing wiht inherently self-destructive people, in any free society.

Quote:

Any philosophy or ideology can be twisted into a nightmare society. Yours, however, actively promotes harm to people (themselves) as liberty. How can that be anything but harmful to the individuals it claims to be protecting?

Again, the freedom of choice to take risks does not amount to an positive obligation to harm yourself. It boils down to just a fundamental philosophical difference between people who have a more socialist outlook and people who have a more libertarian outlook.

[Blue_Nose]

Psudo wrote:

It demands that people be given all the freedom of choice with none of the personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

That's laughable - you're suggesting that personal freedom should be revoked to prevent people from suffering the consequences of their actions - it's you that's stripping away personal responsibility, not the libertarian.

Psudo wrote:

How should society handle the self-harmers who end up needing costly medical care: either to provide for them by charity and welfare programs (socialism), or end of the take-all-comers Emergency Room.

One of the great aspects of healthcare is the ability to learn from those who suffered some ill effect of their actions and live to tell the tale - if we simply banned people from using "harmful" cars instead of letting them drive and get in accidents, we wouldn't have airbags or seatbelts, we'd just have no cars.

Making judgements on which "harmful" personal activities are justified and therefore which freedoms we can "allow" defeats the purpose of freedom and undermines our ability to expore the boundaries of our capabilities - imagine if some politician had decided that nobody has any real need to drive a motor vehicle given the inherent safety risk and subsequently banned them.

Psudo wrote:

Yours, however, actively promotes harm to people (themselves) as liberty. How can that be anything but harmful to the individuals it claims to be protecting?

You're equating engaging in activities that may have harmful consequences with purposely harming oneself - are you suggesting the only reason you don't kill yourself is because it's illegal?

(sorry for all the edits if you happened to view the original post - had a few points to add)

[Murray_Smith]

Blue_Nose wrote:

Psudo wrote:

It demands that people be given all the freedom of choice with none of the personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

That's laughable - you're suggesting that personal freedom should be revoked to prevent people from suffering the consequences of their actions - it's you that's stripping away personal responsibility, not the libertarian.

That's not what Psudo said. He's merely stating that freedom without responsibility is a very bad idea. I don't think he's the authoritarian type.

Quote:

Psudo wrote:

How should society handle the self-harmers who end up needing costly medical care: either to provide for them by charity and welfare programs (socialism), or end of the take-all-comers Emergency Room.

One of the great aspects of healthcare is the ability to learn from those who suffered some ill effect of their actions and live to tell the tale - if we simply banned people from using "harmful" cars instead of letting them drive and get in accidents, we wouldn't have airbags or seatbelts, we'd just have no cars.

Once again, not what he's saying. He's asking how do we ethically provide for the irresponsible?

Quote:

Making judgements on which "harmful" personal activities are justified and therefore which freedoms we can "allow" defeats the purpose of freedom and undermines our ability to expore the boundaries of our capabilities - imagine if some politician had decided that nobody has any real need to drive a motor vehicle given the inherent safety risk and subsequently banned them.

That's idiotic. Every system of government has restrictions on the citizens; that's what a government is supposed to do. Technically, allowing citizens to kill each other is a freedom. It infringes on the right of others to life, but murder is a freedom.

Quote:

Psudo wrote:

Yours, however, actively promotes harm to people (themselves) as liberty. How can that be anything but harmful to the individuals it claims to be protecting?

You're equating engaging in activities that may have harmful consequences with purposely harming oneself - are you suggesting the only reason you don't kill yourself is because it's illegal?

No. Psudo is saying that trumpeting self-harm as a freedom is stupid. And, when you think about it, it is.

[Zipperfish]

Murray_Smith wrote:

No. Psudo is saying that trumpeting self-harm as a freedom is stupid. And, when you think about it, it is.

Gee, what a fantastic argument: "Freedom is stoo-pid, when you think about it" Say, can you amaze us more with your devastatingly persuasive arguments and swift repartees. Sheesh.

[EmperorLiam]

Murray_Smith:

Your entire post regarding me is if full of assumptions, I'm not gonna waste my time re-refuting what I already refuted, are you having fun beating that dead horse?




Psudo: "The libertarian protection of self-harm as a right carries with it no system for judging what should be, can be, or ought to be judged right or wrong by the liberated person."

Agreed, but I'm certain no one has ever thought it did... the right to suicide comes along with the main tenet of libertarianism, that we are the absolute owners of our lives.


"It demands that people be given all the freedom of choice with none of the personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions."

Erm... of all political philosophys (besides anarchism), libertarianism is the most personal responsibility based one, small government means you need to solve more of your own problems alone.

Libertarians believe libertarianism would be the, "most conducive environment for individuals, or society as a whole, to achieve maximum well-being and prosperity."

Individual liberty, and personal responsibility go hand in hand, without government programs to help you, and the taxation that comes with that, you are left more responsible for your own problems, and more resources to deal with them.


"If there's a domestic dispute between the self-harmer and the loved one trying to get them to stop, who do you arrest?"

Neither. Police should never show unless a person specifically requests their presence and for reasons where they fear their rights will be infringed/are being infringed. Trying to stop your significant other from smoking anymore, is not the governments responsibility.


"What of harm of another with that other's consent?"

You mean like getting a tattoo, adult circumcision, boxing, rough sex, etc.


"How should society handle the self-harmers who end up needing costly medical care"

Currently, they tax others to pay for it. Proving that our current social welfare system completely lacks personal responsibility and should be abandoned.



There are a few exceptions in my mind, where I detract from the majority of libertarians position on health care. I feel, for the same reasons that libertarians desire a national army, that infectious diseases should be covered and treated by a national health care system.


"Yours, however, actively promotes harm to people (themselves) as liberty. How can that be anything but harmful to the individuals it claims to be protecting?"

Promotes harm? That is an exaggeration. The reality is, you can pass all the laws you want, people will end their lives anyhow. Are you sure our current method of sending people to jail over failed suicide attempts is good? I know two people that are glad they failed in their suicide attempt, neither appreciated the court process afterwards.

Who said harm was undesirable ? Evolution is a fact, and it hardly has any resemblance of Western morality. Maybe stopping people from ending their lives, is actually doing way more harm to society around them?

Since we can never truly determine in any measurable amount what effect anything has, we have to rely on history to show us what system of governance achieves the goals we desire. Capitalism is a huge winner in my assessment, and liberty seems to be the root cause.

So why would anyone support more laws and more government spending/taxing when clearly history has shown less government = more prosperity. USA wouldn't be rich and powerful had they not been founded on liberty, so why are we turning to the enemy of liberty, which is communism and socialism?

Psudo, don't worry about replying to this post of mine, most of the questions are rhetorical, and I know it takes a lot of effort to respond to them all. I'm not all too concerned with turning you into a libertarian, you'll wise up on your own one day.

[Blue_Nose]

Murray_Smith wrote:

That's not what Psudo said. He's merely stating that freedom without responsibility is a very bad idea. I don't think he's the authoritarian type.

What constitutes "freedom without responsibility"? Responsibility is assumed with the freedom to do an activity - the negative consequences that may result are incurred by anyone engaging in that activity.

Making it illegal shifts that responsibility to the government or whatever legislative authority is enforcing the law.

Murray_Smith wrote:

Once again, not what he's saying. He's asking how do we ethically provide for the irresponsible?

I understand that, and my point is that any standard for "irresponsible" is arbitrary. Is someone who drives a vehicle irresponsible for engaging in an activity that kills or injures thousands of people each year? As far as the health care costs are concerned (which is what I assume you mean by 'provide'), vehicle use is more "irresponsible" than smoking pot.

Whether ideal or not, I simply can't see the alternative to unconditional access to healthcare - who gets to decide what constitutes an "acceptable" need for medical attention?

Murray_Smith wrote:

That's idiotic. Every system of government has restrictions on the citizens; that's what a government is supposed to do. Technically, allowing citizens to kill each other is a freedom. It infringes on the right of others to life, but murder is a freedom.

Murder being illegal is a prime example of a libertarianism (that is, opposed to anarchy), as it allows people to live their lives without fear of being murdered for arbitrary reasons.

Murray_Smith wrote:

No. Psudo is saying that trumpeting self-harm as a freedom is stupid. And, when you think about it, it is.

Your arbitrary definition of "self harm" doesn't necessarily apply to others - everything has and benefits and disadvantages and probabilities associated with each. To maximize the ability of citizens to make their own decisions for themselves is what I consider the libertarian ideal. Someone intentionally doing something for the purpose of harming themselves is mentally ill, and should not be compared to the general population.

[Murray_Smith]

Zipperfish wrote:

Murray_Smith wrote:

No. Psudo is saying that trumpeting self-harm as a freedom is stupid. And, when you think about it, it is.

Gee, what a fantastic argument: "Freedom is stoo-pid, when you think about it" Say, can you amaze us more with your devastatingly persuasive arguments and swift repartees. Sheesh.

That is not what I was saying. Additionally, I was defending Psudo's position that touting self-harm as a freedom is stupid. From one standpoint, it means that a libertarian government wouldn't care about how many citizens kill themselves, hurt themselves, etc. I have no solid opinion of what self-harm should be regulated, as each case is different depending on severity, motive, and method.

EmperorLiam wrote:

Murray_Smith:

Your entire post regarding me is if full of assumptions, I'm not gonna waste my time re-refuting what I already refuted, are you having fun beating that dead horse?

I'm criticizing your arguing technique. I sometimes agree with your views, but the unnecessary remarks lower your credibility. For example, "are you having fun beating that dead horse?" makes you sound like a self-righteous ass.

Quote:

"If there's a domestic dispute between the self-harmer and the loved one trying to get them to stop, who do you arrest?"

Neither. Police should never show unless a person specifically requests their presence and for reasons where they fear their rights will be infringed/are being infringed. Trying to stop your significant other from smoking anymore, is not the governments responsibility.

He means something along the lines of, "What if a person was repeatedly stabbing himself/herself in the arm, and the loved one wanted the self-harmer to stop, because loved one doesn't want the self-harmer to die? If the self-harmer dies, it is guaranteed to traumatize the loved one. Not necessarily mourning for a couple of months and moving along, but possibly a crushing guilt and depression which may end up robbing society of yet another productive citizen.

Quote:

Promotes harm? That is an exaggeration. The reality is, you can pass all the laws you want, people will end their lives anyhow. Are you sure our current method of sending people to jail over failed suicide attempts is good? I know two people that are glad they failed in their suicide attempt, neither appreciated the court process afterwards.

I agree that it is stupid to jail the suicidal, but there should be a mandated 24-hour watch on the person, at least for a time.

Quote:

Who said harm was undesirable ? Evolution is a fact, and it hardly has any resemblance of Western morality. Maybe stopping people from ending their lives, is actually doing way more harm to society around them?

In what way do you mean? That last sentence was really vague.

Quote:

Since we can never truly determine in any measurable amount what effect anything has, we have to rely on history to show us what system of governance achieves the goals we desire. Capitalism is a huge winner in my assessment, and liberty seems to be the root cause.

It is not difficult for capitalism to coexist with tyranny. Keep that in mind. Additionally, deregulating business actually works against the free market, as it allows monopolies to form.

Quote:

So why would anyone support more laws and more government spending/taxing when clearly history has shown less government = more prosperity. USA wouldn't be rich and powerful had they not been founded on liberty, so why are we turning to the enemy of liberty, which is communism and socialism?

National health care is socialism. Any service that is directly or indirectly implemented by a national government is socialism.

True communism focuses on the productiveness of the sum of the parts, where libertarianism focuses on the productiveness of just the parts. The theory is that if everyone in a community does his part for the community, all will prosper. This is fairly easy to implement on the small scale. The downside is that private property does not technically exist, although good neighbors don't snoop. Another downside is that this system is very delicate. If the community contains too many people, there will be someone who will rise to the top. Too few people means too few niches can be filled.

Quote:

Psudo, don't worry about replying to this post of mine, most of the questions are rhetorical, and I know it takes a lot of effort to respond to them all. I'm not all too concerned with turning you into a libertarian, you'll wise up on your own one day.

And there's that condescension again.

[Zipperfish]

Murray_Smith wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Murray_Smith wrote:

No. Psudo is saying that trumpeting self-harm as a freedom is stupid. And, when you think about it, it is.

Gee, what a fantastic argument: "Freedom is stoo-pid, when you think about it" Say, can you amaze us more with your devastatingly persuasive arguments and swift repartees. Sheesh.

That is not what I was saying. Additionally, I was defending Psudo's position that touting self-harm as a freedom is stupid. From one standpoint, it means that a libertarian government wouldn't care about how many citizens kill themselves, hurt themselves, etc. I have no solid opinion of what self-harm should be regulated, as each case is different depending on severity, motive, and method.

What I object to is this notion that if the government gave people any more freedom they would suddenly start slitting their wrists in public because now they had the freedom to do so. It's not illegal to commit (or attempt) suicide in Canada--so why do we still have a population of some 30 million? You'd think everyone would have off'd themselves by now, right? I mean we're free to kill ourselves, we should be jumping off of cliffs in droves. But no...apparently, most people are capable of making raitonal decisions adn realize that the freedom to kill yourself doesn't necessarily mean they have to kill themselves.

The otehr thing I object to is equating--or even relating--smoking the occassional joint ont he weekend with--to use your example--stabbing yourself repeatedly ijn the arm. The level of "self-harm" in those two examples are simply not comparable and it's just an exercise in trying to marginalize people into an extreme position.

[Psudo]

Zipperfish said libertarianism couldn't be twisted into tyranny. I only showed what it can be twisted into. That's all.

[PTBO]

Ok everyone on this forum should go make themselves a peanut butter sandwich and a put good amount of nutmeg (1-2 grams) on it. Then five hours later everybody will be chilled out and baked out of their minds. You could even drive since it isn't illegal to drive under the influnence of nutmeg.

[Psudo]

I only had about two minutes to post when I left the previous message. I'd like to elaborate, now that I have time.

I have no problem with thoughtful, well-implemented libertarian policies in government (especially the separation of government and industry). What I have a problem with is the assumption that because it generally matches the popular definitions or slogans of libertarianism that it is inherently thoughtful, well-implemented, libertarian, or acceptable.

Zipperfish exemplified this when he stated his yardstick for measuring the justice of a law: "legislating against 'self-harm' is tyranny." and "your definition is easily twisted into tyranny. My definition can't be." He's right, in a very limited sense. A right to self-harm cannot be twisted into tyranny. But tyranny isn't the only possible threat to human livelihood, and a right to self-harm certainly can be twisted into such a threat.

If self-harm were a protected right in the US Constitution, there would still be controversy about it the same way there is about the 1st and 2nd amendments. Some people own controversial literature or military assault rifles for no reason other than to advocate for their right to have them, on ideology alone. If they do so for other rights (legally protected and illegal-but-advocated alike), why wouldn't they for a right to self-harm? I've known smokers and cutters who concede that the action itself is wrong, stupid, harmful but do it anyway as a kind of protest for their ideology. Perhaps you have only my word to demonstrate it, but it does happen.

That demonstrates that the motivation toward self-harm can come from a right to it, real or imagined. Why not? All other rights, real or imagined, influence behavior. Why would this one be uniquely benign? And if it were so benign as not to change society, why would it matter whether you had the right or not?

I went on to describe what a right to self-harm would mean if taken as an absolute law, as it was initially offered by Zipperfish. Suicide is protected. Public suicide: is it protected speech or publicly harmful in some concrete way if a man gargles bullets on Disneyland's doorstep? Would he need a permit? Assisted suicide for medical reasons. Assisted suicide for sexual reasons. (It doesn't really matter of Dahmer really did it, claimed he did it, or it was just an episode of Law & Order type show: if someone makes the claim that a murder was a part of consensual sex, should that argument make a difference? An absolute right to self-harm says it makes all the difference.)

An absolute right to self-harm is quite horrible, and may not have even been what Zipperfish intended to advocate. An absolute right to one's own judgment of acceptable risk doesn't quite roll off the tongue, but it's a far more reasonable position. I should be allowed to eat too much salt because, though it may be harmful, I judge the risk to be negligible and the judgment is rightly mine. I should be allowed to own a gun because, though it's technically possible that the gun could accidentally go off and kill some innocent bystander, I am sufficiently careful with it that I judge the risk to be negligible and the judgment is rightly mine.

The difference is subtle but pivotal. A right to self-harm says it's socially acceptable to oppose human life. A right to personal judgment says it is socially acceptable to serve human life as I see best, but it is not socially acceptable to oppose human life.

The latter, while still within the realm of libertarian ideology, is quite obviously preferable for human life. And human life is what it is all about.

[Blue_Nose]

Psudo, two points in response to the post above:

"A right to self-harm says it's socially acceptable to oppose human life.": no, it says that an individual has the right to live (or not) as they see fit. It's got nothing to do with society or opposing "human life", which makes it seem like people ultimately answer to society before themselves. If someone wants unequivocally their life to be over, neither you nor I should have any say in the matter, and why should we?

You also mention social acceptance, and I find that curious. I defend pot smokers not because I find it socially acceptable - I personally find the habit disgusting and the users annoying - but because I feel it's a person's right to decide how they live their lives.