True or false: any personal freedom that brings harm to society in general should...

[FA_Q2]

Sometimes it is difficult for people to admit/see that certain personal freedoms cause societal harm. Legalizing all drugs for instance, would be very detrimental to society.

Why? Please explain. Do you believe everyone would start using all illegal drugs if they were made legal?

No not everyone, but a lot more people. People who otherwise wouldn't be addicts, would become addicts. Also, one thing that hinders addicts right now is limited accessibility to the drug.

Hey I am not against doing meth, cocaine, or heroine every once in a while. It's the habitual use that is the problem.

A lot more people is conjecture. There is a good argument that brining such things out in the open also allows better treatment as well as better controls. Like I stated earlier, one of the major problems with drugs is that you are almost never getting a pure product. All the time things like cocaine and meth are cut with dangerous chemicals. A bad batch or heroine can kill you immediately. They are also increasing the strength of meth and coke, creating a MORE addicting product as well as cutting other drugs with more addicting ones. It is not uncommon to cut other drugs into pot in order to hook a client.

The gains here are in regulation. A legitimate source of drugs can be controlled in strength, potency and addictive tendency. They will always be destructive but to claim that there is no difference in regulated product and illegal street product is rather crazy. We know this is simply false.

 

[bripat9643]

It's the appropriate response to a nonsense comment of yours.

Your libertarian philosophy is nothing more than a screen for "I don't want to pay taxes."

No respect for liberts, for sure.

If I complained about being robbed, would you ridicule and denigrate that as well?

You are indistinguishable from a liberal, Fakey. Hence the sobriquet we refer to you with.

 

[bripat9643]

So are resident libertarians believe "philosophy" and "society" are shams.

Such primeval minds, they. Does anyone doubt they will remain in the small minority in this country?

No, most of us don't believe they are shams. However, society is an abstraction, not an entity with rights or authority. Libtards are always using the term "society" when they really mean government.

To a lot of people they are one in the same.

Those people are called "statists," and their belief is a symptom of servility.

 

[bripat9643]

Society is not an aberration.

so·ci·e·ty
/səˈsīətē/
Noun
The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
The community of people living in a particular region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations. Synonyms association - company - community - fellowship - club

https://www.google.com/search?q=ww....16,d.cGE&fp=7e82d9b01b5814ef&biw=1637&bih=905

So what customs do we share with illegal aliens? Is Cinco de Mayo a shared custom?

 

[bripat9643]

Saying there is no society, only individuals is rather like saying there are no automobiles, only a collection of parts.

Objectivist libertarianism is an idiotic philosophy precisely because its founding principle (there is no such thing as society) is demonstrably idiotic.

Not even close to being correct. You can list every single part that goes into an automobile. Can you list all the parts of "society?" Nope.

 

[editec]

The nonsense here is that you are giving society credit for the work of individuals.

Really. What individual invented english? You really should make an effort if you want to talk with the adults.

What society invented English?

You've got to be kidding me, lad.

You truly just did support my point about the cluelessness of Objectivist Libertarians

Not by answering my question correctly right, of course.

But by responding with a counter-question that's so profoundly silly that it serves only to show us how truly confused you really are about a concept like society.

But let me answer your question as to who invented English ?

The society of English speaking people invented it.,

They are collectively the entity of people (Angloglots)who are still reinventing it, every day.

 

[PratchettFan]

I am not obligated to obey the law. I can disobey the law if I choose. In fact I disobey laws all the time.

I regularly drive over the posted speed limit.


And "society" did not give me my truck or my plow. "Society" did not invent the internal combustion engine. "Society" does not produce anything. Individuals do.

Yes. You can disobey the law and even get away with it if you are not caught. If you are caught then the courts will be happy to explain the concept of obligation to you.

You did not make your truck or your plow. No individual did. It is only through the cooperation of individuals (you know, what we call "society") where those things are possible. It is only because of the interaction of transportation systems, communications, monetary transfer systems, that any of that is possible. I understand you don't want to see that as it interferes with some kind of internal fantasy, but that too changes nothing. If you live in this society, take advantage of its benefits, then you are obligated to it. You can either accept that as a moral understanding, like a grownup, or you can have it forced on you, like a child. Either way works for me.

‘Obligation’ is not the right word. You freely choose to participate in society and pay for that participation through various means. By demanding that we are obligated, you are essentially saying that there is no options here. I am not obligated as I can leave. I can join another society or leave this one for solitude.

By declaring that ‘society’ gives us the things that we have you are also obscuring the reality here. Society most certainly did not give him the plow – he purchased it and not from society either but from an individual. Society is simply the name of the engine. People are the benefactors here. Society creates nothing and does nothing, the people working together in that society do.

Certainly, you can leave. At least in our society. I am not suggesting you are a prisoner. What I am saying is that by staying and participating in society, by taking advantage of the benefits derived from living in society, you become obligated to that society. One can either accept that or not, but society is not free.

You are incorrect on the plow. The purchase was merely one stage in the acquistion of the plow. The plow had to be manufactured, the parts manufactured, the raw materials turned into parts, the ores mined and smelted to create the raw materials, payrolls had to be paid, bank accounts created and used, inspections done, transportation provided, roads built and maintained, railways built and maintained, ships built and manned, trade agreements negotiated,... The list could go on for pages to describe what had to happen before he could purchase the plow. Without the interaction and infrastructure, which is what society is ultimately, the plow would not exist to be purchased. The money used to make the purchase would not exist.

Whether we wish to admit it or not, none of us here exists independently. If you are using a computer you are de facto dependent upon society. To be dependent upon something without giving anything back is the definition of a parasite.

 

[editec]

Mr Beal opines:

Perhaps at this point it would be instructive here to go back to the original question then. . . .

Quote:
True or false: any personal freedom that brings harm to society in general should...
...be outlawed.

True.

Except now you are not debating me as I did NOT say "True".

In fact I pointed out that we ALL do some harm to society and we do not necessarily (nor should we) molest with those people who do so in EVERY CASE.

That was my way, Mr, Beal, of pointing out that the question itself was silly.

 

[Billy000]

Why? Please explain. Do you believe everyone would start using all illegal drugs if they were made legal?

No not everyone, but a lot more people. People who otherwise wouldn't be addicts, would become addicts. Also, one thing that hinders addicts right now is limited accessibility to the drug.

Hey I am not against doing meth, cocaine, or heroine every once in a while. It's the habitual use that is the problem.

A lot more people is conjecture. There is a good argument that brining such things out in the open also allows better treatment as well as better controls. Like I stated earlier, one of the major problems with drugs is that you are almost never getting a pure product. All the time things like cocaine and meth are cut with dangerous chemicals. A bad batch or heroine can kill you immediately. They are also increasing the strength of meth and coke, creating a MORE addicting product as well as cutting other drugs with more addicting ones. It is not uncommon to cut other drugs into pot in order to hook a client.

The gains here are in regulation. A legitimate source of drugs can be controlled in strength, potency and addictive tendency. They will always be destructive but to claim that there is no difference in regulated product and illegal street product is rather crazy. We know this is simply false.

Yeah, its conjecture, but you and I both know that I am right. Regulation is a good compromise, but if part of your solution is to regulate the addictive properties of the drug, what is the standard when it comes to meth, for instance? To what level is acceptable? How much are you suggesting the addictive properties be tweaked? The high is what makes these drugs addicting. And regulated or not, unadulterated cocaine is still highly addictive and problematic for society.

 

[PratchettFan]

No not everyone, but a lot more people. People who otherwise wouldn't be addicts, would become addicts. Also, one thing that hinders addicts right now is limited accessibility to the drug.

Hey I am not against doing meth, cocaine, or heroine every once in a while. It's the habitual use that is the problem.

A lot more people is conjecture. There is a good argument that brining such things out in the open also allows better treatment as well as better controls. Like I stated earlier, one of the major problems with drugs is that you are almost never getting a pure product. All the time things like cocaine and meth are cut with dangerous chemicals. A bad batch or heroine can kill you immediately. They are also increasing the strength of meth and coke, creating a MORE addicting product as well as cutting other drugs with more addicting ones. It is not uncommon to cut other drugs into pot in order to hook a client.

The gains here are in regulation. A legitimate source of drugs can be controlled in strength, potency and addictive tendency. They will always be destructive but to claim that there is no difference in regulated product and illegal street product is rather crazy. We know this is simply false.

Yeah, its conjecture, but you and I both know that I am right. Regulation is a good compromise, but if part of your solution is to regulate the addictive properties of the drug, what is the standard when it comes to meth, for instance? To what level is acceptable? How much are you suggesting the addictive properties be tweaked? The high is what makes these drugs addicting. And regulated or not, unadulterated cocaine is still highly addictive and problematic for society.

You are not right. The degree to which you are not right has been demonstrated clearly by any unemotional survey of the results of prohibition. It does not work, has never worked and will never work. It is based upon the mistaken belief that human beings can be regulated into good behavior. They cannot. So rather than turn those people into criminals, take a fraction of the money that requires and put it into treatment and then take the market out of the hands of criminals and tax it.

Unfortunately, just as you cannot regulate good behavior, you can't expect people to do an unemotional survey of anything. We all carry our baggage.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yeah, its conjecture, but you and I both know that I am right.

No, we don’t know that you are right. I don’t believe that the evidence is in your favor either but as I do not have sufficient evidence to state it as fact, I have not. There are places that we could look if we wanted to sink the time. Holland for one has legalized pot and shrooms as well as unofficially ‘legalizing’ cocaine (you can openly purchase and sell cocaine in red light districts and no one will question you). Canada has made some interesting laws in regard to heroine as well.

All that is beside the point though. Whether or not more are getting high or using is not actually the end determination as to how harmful the drug is. As pointed out, controlled substances and open treatments are beneficial to the users particularly if you are changing to that from prison. Prison where continued use is actually encouraged by the grater hardships that you are going to face for damn near the rest of your life.

Regulation is a good compromise, but if part of your solution is to regulate the addictive properties of the drug, what is the standard when it comes to meth, for instance? To what level is acceptable? How much are you suggesting the addictive properties be tweaked? The high is what makes these drugs addictinvg. And regulated or not, unadulterated cocaine is still highly addictive and problematic for society.

Regulation is not really a compromise. It is a reality of any commercial product and would be integral to legalizing drugs. Unregulated drugs would look like, well, what we have now

It is not a matter of ‘acceptable’ level. It is more a matter of general safety. I said, directly, that rugs would never be good. We are not regulating them to a positive or benign substance BUT there is no argument that what Joe the crack dealer bakes in his basement would be safer than a regulated and controlled product.

You realize that we actually do regulate, control and distribute such hard drugs already, right? Methamphetamines and opium are already legal in very specific instances. They are not as harmful as the street variety of the same drugs. Here is a shocker also; meth is not administered as a medical solution either all the time. There are other uses that the federal government uses it for.

The reality is that people are going to get high. I have seen people smoke banana leaves and tea bags. People smoke bath salts and sniff whip cream cans or refrigerants (all far more dangerous than the hard drugs out there btw). They huff paint cans and markers. There are plenty of options in the world around us to get high that are not illegal at all. Most are far more dangerous though. The idea that we need to outlaw these few substances is crazy as we are not preventing anything. They still get high, get hooked and die. Instead, we need to practice openness, regulation and treatment, not prison, concealment and black markets.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes. You can disobey the law and even get away with it if you are not caught. If you are caught then the courts will be happy to explain the concept of obligation to you.

You did not make your truck or your plow. No individual did. It is only through the cooperation of individuals (you know, what we call "society") where those things are possible. It is only because of the interaction of transportation systems, communications, monetary transfer systems, that any of that is possible. I understand you don't want to see that as it interferes with some kind of internal fantasy, but that too changes nothing. If you live in this society, take advantage of its benefits, then you are obligated to it. You can either accept that as a moral understanding, like a grownup, or you can have it forced on you, like a child. Either way works for me.

‘Obligation’ is not the right word. You freely choose to participate in society and pay for that participation through various means. By demanding that we are obligated, you are essentially saying that there is no options here. I am not obligated as I can leave. I can join another society or leave this one for solitude.

By declaring that ‘society’ gives us the things that we have you are also obscuring the reality here. Society most certainly did not give him the plow – he purchased it and not from society either but from an individual. Society is simply the name of the engine. People are the benefactors here. Society creates nothing and does nothing, the people working together in that society do.

Certainly, you can leave. At least in our society. I am not suggesting you are a prisoner. What I am saying is that by staying and participating in society, by taking advantage of the benefits derived from living in society, you become obligated to that society. One can either accept that or not, but society is not free.

I realize that you are saying that. What I am telling you is that you are NOT obligated. You pay for that already. It is a free exchange of resources – your taxes if you will – and there is no ‘obligation.’ You have made that trade and that is the end of it.

You are incorrect on the plow. The purchase was merely one stage in the acquistion of the plow. The plow had to be manufactured, the parts manufactured, the raw materials turned into parts, the ores mined and smelted to create the raw materials, payrolls had to be paid, bank accounts created and used, inspections done, transportation provided, roads built and maintained, railways built and maintained, ships built and manned, trade agreements negotiated,... The list could go on for pages to describe what had to happen before he could purchase the plow. Without the interaction and infrastructure, which is what society is ultimately, the plow would not exist to be purchased. The money used to make the purchase would not exist.

And none of that refutes the point. At every stage, there was an owner and a purchaser. One traded goods or work for another. The entire process is called ‘society’ but it has nothing to do with purchasing the plow. It was just a long series of people trading one thing or service for another. Individuals built that plow, traded for each step of that plow and got that plow to its end market. On that same token those individuals likely represented thousands of different ‘societies.’ Which one are you saying that skull is ‘obligated’ to or which one created the item? Was it the small society of the factory workers or the larger one representing the country or possibly the loosely related one of the truckers? The reality is that it was all and yet it was none. Society is just the amorphous name that we call small and large groups of interrelated individuals. Society is responsible for nothing in truth as it is the individuals themselves, working together, that creates. Society is just what we call that interaction.

Whether we wish to admit it or not, none of us here exists independently. If you are using a computer you are de facto dependent upon society. To be dependent upon something without giving anything back is the definition of a parasite.

*sigh*
No, you are not ‘dependent’ on society because you use a computer. You are simply interacting with others and building on that interaction. That is not dependence; it is a mutual beneficial relationship. Dependence is a one way road. This is a two way interaction with give and take.

 

[hortysir]

A lot more people is conjecture. There is a good argument that brining such things out in the open also allows better treatment as well as better controls. Like I stated earlier, one of the major problems with drugs is that you are almost never getting a pure product. All the time things like cocaine and meth are cut with dangerous chemicals. A bad batch or heroine can kill you immediately. They are also increasing the strength of meth and coke, creating a MORE addicting product as well as cutting other drugs with more addicting ones. It is not uncommon to cut other drugs into pot in order to hook a client.

The gains here are in regulation. A legitimate source of drugs can be controlled in strength, potency and addictive tendency. They will always be destructive but to claim that there is no difference in regulated product and illegal street product is rather crazy. We know this is simply false.

Yeah, its conjecture, but you and I both know that I am right. Regulation is a good compromise, but if part of your solution is to regulate the addictive properties of the drug, what is the standard when it comes to meth, for instance? To what level is acceptable? How much are you suggesting the addictive properties be tweaked? The high is what makes these drugs addicting. And regulated or not, unadulterated cocaine is still highly addictive and problematic for society.

You are not right. The degree to which you are not right has been demonstrated clearly by any unemotional survey of the results of prohibition. It does not work, has never worked and will never work. It is based upon the mistaken belief that human beings can be regulated into good behavior. They cannot. So rather than turn those people into criminals, take a fraction of the money that requires and put it into treatment and then take the market out of the hands of criminals and tax it.

Unfortunately, just as you cannot regulate good behavior, you can't expect people to do an unemotional survey of anything. We all carry our baggage.

QFT

 

[Oddball]

Sometimes it is difficult for people to admit/see that certain personal freedoms cause societal harm. Legalizing all drugs for instance, would be very detrimental to society.

Why? Please explain. Do you believe everyone would start using all illegal drugs if they were made legal?

No not everyone, but a lot more people. People who otherwise wouldn't be addicts, would become addicts. Also, one thing that hinders addicts right now is limited accessibility to the drug.

Hey I am not against doing meth, cocaine, or heroine every once in a while. It's the habitual use that is the problem.

Now, that is fucking idiotic.

There is no limited accessibility at all.....The best evidence of that is that drugs have never been cheaper....Basic economics....All there is is the inability to purchase those drugs from a "legitimate" storefront.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sometimes it is difficult for people to admit/see that certain personal freedoms cause societal harm. Legalizing all drugs for instance, would be very detrimental to society.

Why? Please explain. Do you believe everyone would start using all illegal drugs if they were made legal?

No not everyone, but a lot more people. People who otherwise wouldn't be addicts, would become addicts. Also, one thing that hinders addicts right now is limited accessibility to the drug.

Hey I am not against doing meth, cocaine, or heroine every once in a while. It's the habitual use that is the problem.

Limited? I am not an addict, and I am willing to bet you can drop me in any city in this country and I would find a dealer within 4 hours. I know addicts who can do it in a fraction of that time. In fact, I know addicts who got high in prison.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why? Please explain. Do you believe everyone would start using all illegal drugs if they were made legal?

Maybe the only thing keeping him from being an addict is the fact that he is too stupid to get the drugs from the guy on the corner.

You always say the dumbest shit. Am I really supposed to take offense to that?

If I wanted to insult you I would have insulted you, I was just commiserating with a fellow person with an IQ above the freezing point of water about how dumb you are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Saying there is no society, only individuals is rather like saying there are no automobiles, only a collection of parts.

Objectivist libertarianism is an idiotic philosophy precisely because its founding principle (there is no such thing as society) is demonstrably idiotic.

Society, whatever you think it is, is not harmed by individual freedom.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Really. What individual invented english? You really should make an effort if you want to talk with the adults.

What society invented English?

You've got to be kidding me, lad.

You truly just did support my point about the cluelessness of Objectivist Libertarians

This from a guy that can't even use HTML tags properly.

Not by answering my question correctly right, of course.

It wasn't your question. Want to try again?

But by responding with a counter-question that's so profoundly silly that it serves only to show us how truly confused you really are about a concept like society.

How is pointing out that no one invented English silly?

But let me answer your question as to who invented English ?

It isn't a question, it is a logical fallacy I am using to make a point.

The society of English speaking people invented it.,

They did? Seriously?

The only languages that are invented are things like Esperanto, Klingon, Romulan, and Pandoran. Somebody sits down, figures out the rules in advance, develops syntax and pronunciation, and goes to town. That is not happens with real languages, people make the stuff up as they go along, and someone comes along later and figures out the rules.

They are collectively the entity of people (Angloglots)who are still reinventing it, every day.

Entity of people? Did you type that while sober?

 

[pix]

Most of the inventors in history have been INTJs, which makes your argument that we, whoever you think we is, are social even more absurd.

well to be accurate, the Myers-Briggs "personality test" is held in as much esteem as an astrological chart in psych., circles, but the lay ppl love it and put much store in it, for some reason.
and those who may show up as an intj or an entj or any other of the 16 combinations will more often than not be in an entirely different "myers/briggs pigeon hole" under different circumstances, on a different day.

That doesn't change the fact that genius inventors tend to be crazy quiet loners.

well, ill tell you what i tell everyone who makes spurious connections like, "genius inventors tend to be crazy quiet loners"....
and that is; are you sure youre not confusing cause and effect?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes. You can disobey the law and even get away with it if you are not caught. If you are caught then the courts will be happy to explain the concept of obligation to you.

You did not make your truck or your plow. No individual did. It is only through the cooperation of individuals (you know, what we call "society") where those things are possible. It is only because of the interaction of transportation systems, communications, monetary transfer systems, that any of that is possible. I understand you don't want to see that as it interferes with some kind of internal fantasy, but that too changes nothing. If you live in this society, take advantage of its benefits, then you are obligated to it. You can either accept that as a moral understanding, like a grownup, or you can have it forced on you, like a child. Either way works for me.

‘Obligation’ is not the right word. You freely choose to participate in society and pay for that participation through various means. By demanding that we are obligated, you are essentially saying that there is no options here. I am not obligated as I can leave. I can join another society or leave this one for solitude.

By declaring that ‘society’ gives us the things that we have you are also obscuring the reality here. Society most certainly did not give him the plow – he purchased it and not from society either but from an individual. Society is simply the name of the engine. People are the benefactors here. Society creates nothing and does nothing, the people working together in that society do.

Certainly, you can leave. At least in our society. I am not suggesting you are a prisoner. What I am saying is that by staying and participating in society, by taking advantage of the benefits derived from living in society, you become obligated to that society. One can either accept that or not, but society is not free.

You are incorrect on the plow. The purchase was merely one stage in the acquistion of the plow. The plow had to be manufactured, the parts manufactured, the raw materials turned into parts, the ores mined and smelted to create the raw materials, payrolls had to be paid, bank accounts created and used, inspections done, transportation provided, roads built and maintained, railways built and maintained, ships built and manned, trade agreements negotiated,... The list could go on for pages to describe what had to happen before he could purchase the plow. Without the interaction and infrastructure, which is what society is ultimately, the plow would not exist to be purchased. The money used to make the purchase would not exist.

Whether we wish to admit it or not, none of us here exists independently. If you are using a computer you are de facto dependent upon society. To be dependent upon something without giving anything back is the definition of a parasite.

I gave money for the computer, and gave my time to get money.

End of obligation.