No need to state the obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Printable View
No need to state the obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
So? I'm expecting an answer...Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Why would I answer? You say you don't care. And frankly I don't care to continue our discussion either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Soulforge, many drugs are highly addictive, even with the damaging effect side ignored, are still very, very dangerous. For a simple example: heroin addicts, no matter how, when, where, or why they were addicted, were unable - not unwilling - to stop the behavior. These drugs take away their free will, literally by manipulating chemically (and possibly psychologically - I have never been addicted myself to tell you, and not intend to). They, practically, became slaves to the drugs. I'm not even mentioning side effects that often translates into harm against society and self.
Even less damaging drugs and chemicals are still addictive and work in the same fashion, but of less proportion. You can't possibly argue for things that take away one's free will like this using a personal rights/responsibility argument.
What is the responsibility of the state then? To provide laws? Why provide laws... to look after the people? To look after the people we need to look at their education, health and social infrasturcture (the ability to walk in park without getting mugged for instance).Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
If someone has an addiction they are costing the state somewhere:
Lost productivity.
People have to help them out, family, friends, nurses and doctors. I would much rather have medical resources spent on accidents then self inflicted injuries.
Diversion of resources in police and the law courts.
Motor vehicle accidents.
etc
Next time you see some kid on TV dying from some medical disorder think about all the medical resources that could have been used to help them that have been diverted to someone pursing their personal freedoms.
That's the problem with Soul's position thus far. He advocates full legalization, but has elsewhere advocated a fairly socialist set of government responsibilities and actions. So, by implication, anyone would get to do whatever they wished as long as it did not directly impinge upon another's rights, but the government would pick up the health care tab and education tab etc. for all. That is the proverbial "having your cake and eating it too."Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
US Libertarians want the full freedom side, but they are also realistic enough to see that government - a.k.a. everybody - ought not pay for the priviledge. Total freedom without responsibility is, pardon the pun, nothing but a pipe dream.
Seamus
Until when should I repeat this, FREEDOM (at the Braveheart style). It doesn't matter if it does wrong to the individual because the state doesn't judge on morals or on the way you carry your life, it's very simple, though people like Adrian II don't seem to understand it, it surprises me coming for a country that is evolving quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Free will is not considered certain by all the scientific community, anyway that's just info, the real matter here is freedom, the man does what he wants unless it gets on others peoples rights, is a guarantee given to you and me, and to every person.Quote:
Even less damaging drugs and chemicals are still addictive and work in the same fashion, but of less proportion. You can't possibly argue for things that take away one's free will like this using a personal rights/responsibility argument.
First the majority of the laws constitute a formal frame to ubicate material relationships between humans. In the relationships exists always at least two persons, in the way that one intervene in the other for good or for bad. Now we must differenciate, as the dogma states, between various types of areas. I'll just advocate to the one in question (having in count that the Consititution is forever and ever first to all the others, and the first article or amendment of the consitution is always first to the second and thus...), penal law. In penal law there's various principles, but one accepted now for all the doctrine is this: "we judge the actions of the man (not the man) that attacks or menace the rights or third parties", now does drugging intervene in the rights of thirds? No. Does the potencial actions under the influence does? Yes, but then it's another problem, and we cannot limitate the freedom of the people for the sake of morality, wich is not even a subject for the state to treat.Quote:
What is the responsibility of the state then? To provide laws? Why provide laws... to look after the people? To look after the people we need to look at their education, health and social infrasturcture (the ability to walk in park without getting mugged for instance).
More and more I'm convinced that there's other people that likes despotism more than I. :no:Quote:
If someone has an addiction they are costing the state somewhere:
Lost productivity.
People have to help them out, family, friends, nurses and doctors. I would much rather have medical resources spent on accidents then self inflicted injuries.
Diversion of resources in police and the law courts.
Motor vehicle accidents.
etc
So you're filled with propaganda, well it doesn't surprises me, though Penn & Teller's show has made a nice exposure of this subject i recommend you to see it. It's not the case you're extending the validity of penal law and surpasing constitution, let me see your constitution and I can asure you that a principle just like the first amendment will be there. But don't worry I'll cry much more when we lose all our freedoms because some people think that the state has to take care of us... :no:Quote:
Next time you see some kid on TV dying from some medical disorder think about all the medical resources that could have been used to help them that have been diverted to someone pursing their personal freedoms.
Wrong, the responsability remains on the individual, that doesn't means that the state don't has to provide free services, including health, you misunderstood me. If the individual wants to makes use of it then fine, if wants to die from overdosis then it's his problem, not society's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus
Total freedom is a dream as you say (i never said anything about that, did I?), but as you didn't understand me, I'll say that the answer to you is very easy look at the first amendment, it's a very simple and absolute principle in protection of your rights.Quote:
US Libertarians want the full freedom side, but they are also realistic enough to see that government - a.k.a. everybody - ought not pay for the priviledge. Total freedom without responsibility is, pardon the pun, nothing but a pipe dream.
Freedom for Freedom's sake isn't always good. If that were the case, there would be no point to government and we would have anarchy. We have a government, and it is meant to govern. The people think that Heroin is indeed worthy of banning because it is so destructive to everyone. A persons actions have an effect on the society they live in. If someone wants to drive a car into a building because they think it is fun, they get charged under the law of crime. Similarly, I don't have the right to say anything I want to; I cannot lie about people or be totally obscene. If for no other reason than that our country doesn't like the drug-traffic, they still have every right to ban a substance, and they have incentive if the substance is harmful. The FDA regulates medicines that do not work as the should, or are too harmful.
I can't understand you here (not trying to be insulting, your English is vastly better than my Spanish). Do you mean:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
A: The State should provide free services, but cannot force individuals to use those services.
or
B: The State should not be forced to provide services to individuals whose drug use or other activity has resulted in them harming themselves.
or
C: The individual is on his own, and the State will neither hinder their individual actions nor assist should something go wrong.
?
All of the first 10 ammendments to the US Constitution are an integral, and integrated,discussion of rights. Throughout that discussion, the emphasis on the personal responsibility of the individual for his/her own actions is clearly implied.Quote:
Originally Posted by Souldforged
This may indeed mean that prohibition of any substance is implicitly unconstitutional, unless you accept the argument that drugs constitute a danger to others as well as the user her/himself, in which case the government must step in to prevent harm to another's rights.
What it does not do (or at least should not do), however, is allow the individual to do whatever they wish without paying for the consequences themselves. If you wish to addle your nervous system with heroin but are unable to pay for medical treatment resulting therefrom, why should the government take my money to pay for your care? If I pay for that care, it should be an act of charity on my part, resulting from my own decision and not "public" charity forced upon me by government under the threat of force.
Seamus
Exactly. So the problem is the nanny state not the herion addict. ~DQuote:
If you wish to addle your nervous system with heroin but are unable to pay for medical treatment resulting therefrom, why should the government take my money to pay for your care?
Well, how can you argue that heroin ADDICTS have FREEDOM? They're ADDICTED, for the sake of all things real! Addiction! Inability to get out! You can hide a small amount of heroin in, say, candy and voila: the victim addicted against his/her will. Or better yet, gang actions/manipulations. Or we can blame it on society; yes, we can, and thus society should take responsiblity as well in healing you. And examples go on and on. Or may be you're depressed, and, in your foolishness, take heroin. Oh wait, now you're addicted. You lost your rational ability (didn't we lock up mentally retarded people similarly, or take CLOSE care of them, as well?) and you're now an ADDICT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Also, did you consider the possibility that drug addicts conduct more crimes like murder, robbery, rape, etc, than conscious people, and that simply means society now has the right to protect itself?
Fine. How about me rephrasing it to be clearer, and replace all "free will" with freedom? These drugs chemically manipulate you in a way that you lost your freedom to decide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
And did you just say records of drug addiction propaganda? Wow...
I see society and the individual have shared liberties and responsibilities.
Society should do its best to create better individuals. And individuals should work towards creating a better society. Symbiosis.
A drug addict is not a contributor to society. They are a self inflicted mental and physical handicap. I would much rather have the pool of resources for mental and physical health go towards those who do not create their own mess. At the same time it is better for both the individual and society for the person to be looked after. Society has to look after them, but society would be better off as a whole if the individual instead of being a drug addict had done something positive in their lives. As would the individual.
There is also a side issue in which society may have contributed to the individuals drug use. However given the amount of users who are from wealthy backgrounds it cannot purely be blamed on social conditions.
Wrong you always try to make this analogies, when social science works very differently to natural.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Wrong again, society has to do something about him? Yes, society has to provide health. Society has to penalice the drugs use or prohibite them? No, the person should be free to take drugs or not to take. Period.Quote:
A drug addict is not a contributor to society. They are a self inflicted mental and physical handicap. I would much rather have the pool of resources for mental and physical health go towards those who do not create their own mess. At the same time it is better for both the individual and society for the person to be looked after. Society has to look after them, but society would be better off as a whole if the individual instead of being a drug addict had done something positive in their lives. As would the individual.
This doesn't matter.Quote:
There is also a side issue in which society may have contributed to the individuals drug use. However given the amount of users who are from wealthy backgrounds it cannot purely be blamed on social conditions.
No. The person choose to take drugs, there's your freedom, if lately he/she is free or not, is his/her problem. If he/she then commits a crime then is society problem. You must understand that treating drugadicts like criminals is a fallacy. Also I'll make you a simple exposure: in law we've a principle called of proportionallity, thus all punishment has to be proportional. The justification from the side of reeducation is loosing partidiaries, but if you want to allegate them then it's ok, it has nothing to do with the subject. We've another principle called "prohibition of return", this prohibits the causal to return in the curse of action (for example: A takes drugs, then he takes a weapon and kills somebody, the causal will be the action of "trying to kill", and not taking drugs, thus it cannot be punished). I can continue to give you dogmatic arguments but it will do no good to the discussion, keep it on freedom, that you didn't understand anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthiocus
Then they'll be disuaded by the punishment to those crimes of taking drugs, simple.Fine.Quote:
Also, did you consider the possibility that drug addicts conduct more crimes like murder, robbery, rape, etc, than conscious people, and that simply means society now has the right to protect itself?
Then you'll have no point. Freedom is the ability to choose, if the state takes that then you've no freedom, the state can limit it to the point when you take the freedom of another person, not when you deliver your own. Again taking drugs is freedom, if you lost that freedom in drugs is another subject, besides all vices takes out your freedom, mostly alcohol. And yes I did say propaganda the one that shows how bad are drugs bla,bla,bla...Quote:
How about me rephrasing it to be clearer, and replace all "free will" with freedom? These drugs chemically manipulate you in a way that you lost your freedom to decide.
And did you just say records of drug addiction propaganda? Wow...
This is what I say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus
Not at all you see, as I said there's no causal relationship between drug taking and afectation on the real world, the action that causes that effect is the one done by the person. The drugging is an act done to yourself and yourself only.Quote:
This may indeed mean that prohibition of any substance is implicitly unconstitutional, unless you accept the argument that drugs constitute a danger to others as well as the user her/himself, in which case the government must step in to prevent harm to another's rights.
I agree with you, but many here don't seem to understand that. Though I think you don't understand one point, the medical care that I'm talking about don't reduces to drug cleansing (that should not be forced of course), but to advertisements (like the one done of cigars and alcohol products) and others medical cares.Quote:
What it does not do (or at least should not do), however, is allow the individual to do whatever they wish without paying for the consequences themselves. If you wish to addle your nervous system with heroin but are unable to pay for medical treatment resulting therefrom, why should the government take my money to pay for your care? If I pay for that care, it should be an act of charity on my part, resulting from my own decision and not "public" charity forced upon me by government under the threat of force.
So you are saying that society which is a group of individuals should provide for an individual who does not provide for them????
If social science works very differently to natural science that is the fault with social science and its attempts to distance man from nature.Quote:
Wrong you always try to make this analogies, when social science works very differently to natural
So it is a one way street where everyone else has to look after people who refuse to look after themselves? Freedom with out responsibility is for those who are not adults. These resources that are spent looking after the health of drug addicts is diverted from looking after those who deserve them more.Quote:
Wrong again, society has to do something about him? Yes, society has to provide health. Society has to penalice the drugs use or prohibite them? No, the person should be free to take drugs or not to take. Period.
Imagine a society purely of heroin drug addicts... how is it going to function? who is going to look after them?
If you want to be free of social consequences then you should not expect society to pick up your tab. Every action has consequences, regardless of it being free or not.
Man, this is like having an arguement with my wife, her degree is in political economics and management :tiny: ...
Society is not simply a group of individuals (this is a very positive view, wrong may I say) it's a related group that creates a new entity, that in law is treated as a different person (juridic person). And they should provide for the individual, but forcing is not providing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Are you trying to say me that when you studied science (in the speciality that you did) you never readed the works of Hegel, of Kun, of Focoult, of Marx? You'll see that society uses from the very basis an hermeneutic system, convined with ideal models (Hegel). So not, it's not wrong, man has an "spirit" wich doesn't respond to natural laws and that's why positive science is not applieble in perfect form. And man is distancing from nature, at least i hope so... ~:confused:Quote:
If social science works very differently to natural science that is the fault with social science and its attempts to distance man from nature.
Look, do you want to take all health for drugadicts off the function, then do it, it has nothing to do with our freedoms. The formule freedom ->responsability, could be applied this way= take drugs, but if you commit a crime the you'll be punished. You don't respond for the acts that affect yourself, but for those that affects others.Quote:
So it is a one way street where everyone else has to look after people who refuse to look after themselves? Freedom with out responsibility is for those who are not adults. These resources that are spent looking after the health of drug addicts is diverted from looking after those who deserve them more.
Then it's not going to function, the state cannot act like your father, but this hipotesis is very inprobable...Quote:
Imagine a society purely of heroin drug addicts... how is it going to function? who is going to look after them?
Then for example is you commit a murder i can punish your father for having you? Is that what you're trying to say me. The phylosophy behind law is not that simple. The man is not allknowing thus he cannot be charged for every causal on the curse of an action, only for the most relevant, that wich directly causes the effect.Quote:
If you want to be free of social consequences then you should not expect society to pick up your tab. Every action has consequences, regardless of it being free or not.
Then your wife is right and you're not ~;) . Well like always... ~DQuote:
Man, this is like having an arguement with my wife, her degree is in political economics and management :tiny: ...
Who at the end of the day ends up paying for the resources that will be used? The state... but where does the state get these resources? From individuals. Even if there is a whole 6 degrees of separation, the individuals will pick up the tab, either directly or by direction of the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
No, we specialise at about 15 in Australia. You can drop virtually all social studies at this point and focus on the subjects relevant to your preferred speciality. It does mean a narrow focus, but a strong one that relies on other specialists.Quote:
Are you trying to say me that when you studied science (in the speciality that you did) you never readed the works of Hegel, of Kun, of Focoult, of Marx? You'll see that society uses from the very basis an hermeneutic system, convined with ideal models (Hegel). So not, it's not wrong, man has an "spirit" wich doesn't respond to natural laws and that's why positive science is not applieble in perfect form. And man is distancing from nature, at least i hope so... ~:confused:
I do not think man is beyond the natural laws. We try and think we are not because it is factual but because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy. A child would use a teddy bear, a miner jug of beer, while an intellectual will try and redefine the universe to make themselves feel better. However a quick step out in front of a train is a quick reminder of how far above the laws of nature we are.
I agree if you commit a crime you should not be able to use drugs as a reason to explain impairment. However by legalising them would you not then allow someone to say that the drugs impaired them from making a sound judgement upon the correct course of action?Quote:
Look, do you want to take all health for drugadicts off the function, then do it, it has nothing to do with our freedoms. The formule freedom ->responsability, could be applied this way= take drugs, but if you commit a crime the you'll be punished. You don't respond for the acts that affect yourself, but for those that affects others.
What is the function of the state? Even if the hypothesis is highly improbable, what would be the end result of a community of heroin addicts?Quote:
Then it's not going to function, the state cannot act like your father, but this hipotesis is very inprobable...
I am saying that if you do something or the lack of doing something it will have an effect, a consequence. I was not stating that someone else should have to pay for your actions. You are in fact stating that the state (all the rest of the individuals) should pay for the mistake of the drug addict by picking up the tab for his health. I would rather the drug addict never take the choice of using drugs and instead help others.Quote:
Then for example is you commit a murder i can punish your father for having you? Is that what you're trying to say me. The phylosophy behind law is not that simple. The man is not allknowing thus he cannot be charged for every causal on the curse of an action, only for the most relevant, that wich directly causes the effect.
Yes, it is called marriage.Quote:
Then your wife is right and you're not ~;) . Well like always... ~D
And drugs of couse degrade humanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
This has nothing to do the point is tha society is considered a new entity, that acts formally through the state against the individual in most cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
It's a shame, those are wonderful jobs. :no:Quote:
No, we specialise at about 15 in Australia. You can drop virtually all social studies at this point and focus on the subjects relevant to your preferred speciality. It does mean a narrow focus, but a strong one that relies on other specialists.
Well this has nothing to do. The sociology, history, etc. have a total new way to study the world, the real physical world is studied by positive science the metaphysical or spiritual by the social sciences (though it differences itself from religion in that it requires proof and study, as well as an element of natural law, to make all as exact as possible)Quote:
I do not think man is beyond the natural laws. We try and think we are not because it is factual but because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy. A child would use a teddy bear, a miner jug of beer, while an intellectual will try and redefine the universe to make themselves feel better. However a quick step out in front of a train is a quick reminder of how far above the laws of nature we are.
No. This things happen normally (if you want to call it that way) with permited risks, like alcohol. The subject is transformed into an inimputable (one that has no capacity of culpability). The correct solution will be apreciating a tentative and an imprudent crime. In anycase this is covered by the previously mentioned prohibition of return. Look at it from logics: 1 (being first action)- take drugs (permited risk, even protected by constitution). 2- objective condition: man in alterated state. 3- Man without full control over emotions and movements takes a gun. 4- He aims it to other. 5-He shoots. The causal will be 4. So if you'll prohibite something you prohibite the nocive action, and not the self nocive one, as I always said the punishment of the crime is enough to disuade, if that's your position (because looking at it from the dogma it will be wrong to think in disuasion).Quote:
I agree if you commit a crime you should not be able to use drugs as a reason to explain impairment. However by legalising them would you not then allow someone to say that the drugs impaired them from making a sound judgement upon the correct course of action?
Nothing the state cannot force the individuals to go against their freedoms. Also if all the people is drogadict, the ones on the state will be too, so nobody can do anything.Quote:
What is the function of the state? Even if the hypothesis is highly improbable, what would be the end result of a community of heroin addicts?
Wrong, I never stated that. In fact for me the state cannot care less for the individual. The state only provides medical help and psycological assistence for those who wants to use it. But again for 100ยบ time, this has nothing to do, you can take this out of the function, and focus on freedom, that's all that matter. And for the last sentence I answer: then the punishment of crimes will be enough to disuade, it's a wrong look at things, but if you want to still look at it from there, then know that for matters of the disuasion it's enough.Quote:
I am saying that if you do something or the lack of doing something it will have an effect, a consequence. I was not stating that someone else should have to pay for your actions. You are in fact stating that the state (all the rest of the individuals) should pay for the mistake of the drug addict by picking up the tab for his health. I would rather the drug addict never take the choice of using drugs and instead help others.
Yes but the state cannot take actions against all actions that degrade humanity, only those that go against another human. In fact privating you from your freedoms goes against humanity. :duel:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio