Outstanding...I agree with every single word you posted, but these ten words competely gets to the core of the issue.
A truly memorable post, and I only have one thing to add...
Posted on 06/18/2005 9:42:25 AM PDT by flixxx
Exasperated by pessimism about the "war on drugs," John Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, says:
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Unfortunately I am fairly skeptical about the drug problem
Maybe because it has failed continuously and consistently since it was begun?
The whole WOD from the Volstead Act on has been a cruel and expensive boondogle.
It has accomplished nothing useful.
SO9
I noticed that as a good quote too. Do you think that can be positively accomplished by heavy punitive actions?
Like most supporters of the drug war, this useless, incompetent dunce has it exactly backwards. He is a tool of the drug cartels. Their success depends on criminalization of drugs to limit the supply and raise the price. They don't want legalization; it would kill their profits overnight!
Drug warriors, you are fools! You have been manipulated by the media frenzy that began in the 80's and continues to the present day. Why do you people distrust the media and government on every other issue of the day, yet blindly follow the party line on drug criminalization like gullible sheep? Do you know why those in government and the media have been beating the drum against drugs so loudly?
Think back to the other big news of the day when the drug war started under Reagan: Countries in Latin America and Asia owed billions of dollars to the big New York banks, money they had no hope of ever repaying.
By cracking down on drugs, the bankers' accomplices in government and the media ensured that 1) the concentration (and hence the addictiveness) of drugs would go up, the better to facilitate smuggling, 2) the price would go WAY up, and 3) many billions of dollars would flow from the pockets of drug-addicted American losers into the economies of the countries that produced and smuggled the drugs, and thence back into the coffers of David Rockefeller and his ilk.
This is just the economic argument against the drug war. I submit that the toll in human lives has been greater. More people have died fighting the drug war than ever were killed by drugs, more people have had their lives ruined by falling afoul of the law than would have suffered ill effects of drug use, and every year more of our ancient liberties are surrendered to Big Government by patriotic Americans who ought to know better, all in the name of a futile waste of time and money and lives that cannot possibly succeed.
If you support the War on Drugs, you're no conservative. You are a statist fool, and a gullible tool of Big Government, Big Media and Big Banking. You ought to be ashamed of your pig-headed, bloody-minded ignorance.
-ccm
I don't think total legalization would solve anything from an economic standpoint. Keep in mind that even in the states that do legalize marijuana for 'medicinal' use, the pot is often pretty low-grade. Drug abusers are always looking for the quick fix -- the highest quality for the greatest possible high. There's no other social explanation for why some moron would be willing to inject black tar heroin into his forearm or smoke stuff that's been melted in a plastic spoon.
However, I do agree with you in the aspect that there are definitely two things that turn self-declared hard-line conservatives into liberals at the drop of a hat: drugs and tv/radio censorship. But then, we do have to stand for some degree of social decency, or we'll be left with the liberal "do it because it feels good" paradise.
Someone has to take a stand. But it does need to be a reasonable one.
Good post. You make some great points. Another thought to consider about media backing of the drug war is the reflexive defensive human nature to deflect negativity from oneself. The press desires to have a stainless reputation yet they are just an arm of the greater Hollyweird entertainment industry and desire to be so. In order to be a part of that and preserve some appearance of integrity they play along with Woddie fantasy of helping people by punishing drug users/producers.
Take a stand for liberty.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry M. Goldwater
The, "better natures," argument like our very founding documents relies upon a presupposition of a society which, because of a faith in Natural Law, does not rely primarily or exclusively on government to codify its moral values. This is why those working so hard to subvert the American way of life have concentrated their efforts on deconstructing belief in any sort of absolute morality. When the, "heavy punitive actions," consist primarily of the disapproval of the overwhelming majority of society, it works. When the majority of society is led to believe that the proper way to deal with offensive and deviant behavior is to, "try and understand," and fully relinquish moral definitions and judgments to legislators and jurists, everybody loses. When a culture is led to deemphasive virtue and ridicule morality, situational ethics and moral relativism run rampant and those who get to define such things will increase in power. In this manner will our nation be lost.
That is all good as far as it goes but it doesn't answer the question I asked.
".... the number of people incarcerated for drug offenses on any given day has increased from 50,000 in 1980 to 450,000 in 2003...."
The WOD will continue as long as it supports the wages of law enforcement, lawyers, prison guards, phoney drug schools, judges, and state thru federal government officials. Imagine what would happen to these ghouls if drugs were legalized but controlled like, say, beer.
Inflation adjusted prices for pot may have fallen but unfortunately, thanks to lots of illegal alien labor, the average carpenter's wages have fallen too in non-inflation adjusted dollars.
I believe it does...but like in the rest of life, sometimes the answers are not that easily discerned, so I'll try again.
If you mean "heavier punishments," strictly in regards to legislation, sentencing guidelines, mandatory counseling, etc. no it will not work.
If, "heavier punishment," is viewed in a less restricted scope and includes public, private, familial etc. condemnation of the behavior, exclusion from the community, abandonment by general society until such time the offending behaviors are modified, then yes it will. This, however, can only be achieved if the society at large can come to a general agreement regarding some basic moral absolutes and the individuals within that society assume a degree of responsibility for trying to live according to those moral precepts instead of lionizing those who defy them.
In what is perhaps the last intelligent thing ever written by a Democrat, Daniel Moynihan examined Durkheim's Constant in light of American social trends at the time (1993). Bork, in Slouching toward Gomorrah, expands further on Moynihan's piece and discusses it further in the context of liberal jurisprudenc.
The WOD was certainly emphasized under RR, but Nixon started it when he converted the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD - ominous sounding, eh?) to the DEA.
In the early 70s, the DEA became fixated on cocaine even though there wasn't much of a market for it (in '71 you could buy an ounce of coke for about $100, but nobody wanted it.) The DEA appropriated $10 million to set up street buys of coke and the chase was on!
The DEA actually helped to create the market for coke.
Don't assume that all drug warriors are fools -- some of them are making a damn good buck out of the WoD.
I've been smoking pot since I was 15 (30+ years), and in all that time I have NEVER advocated legalizing it. Right now, we have the big two drugs in our society (tobacco and alcohol). If marijuana were legalized, the big two would immediately become the big three. Don't try to tell me that the overall cost to society, in terms of lost productivity and auto accidents, wouldn't be greater than whatever we spend on the WOD. "But we'll never win the war on drugs". Well, we'll never keep people from robbing banks or going to hookers, so what's your solution, legalize them both? If anyone wants to give me a real solution to this, let me know. If you're just going to flame me, please don't bother.
The demand for drugs will never be stopped.
The key word there is be which implies a forced end to demand. As you say that won't happen. But that is not to say that demand for drugs is some fixed phenomena of human nature. Joe 6-pack's post to me is the answer to demand. Attitudes must change.
That was the point of the question in my first post. To paraphrase it "will coercion solve the drug problem?" If force or coercion could change attitudes about how to treat one's own mind and body then it could solve the drug problem but I don't think that works. If someone is attacking you then force and coercion can definitely change attitudes if applied decisively. (see War on Terrorism) But it is ridiculous and malicious to think of applying that kind of force against people for abusing themselves. The Woddies don't get that distinction.
Throwing that "if" in there makes your point work, sure. That is the only way your point works. But that is the social/cultural solution which I addressed in my last post. (which I know you couldn't have seen before you replied to me) The context I was asking the question in was taken from the article and referred solely to the government solution of criminal liabilities and I specified "heavy punitive actions" so I wasn't even ruling out less harsh legal consequences than are currently imposed.
What you originally posted is wisdom. There will never be a utopia where there is no suffering but suffering can be greatly reduced by the means suggested there. As that quote was originally intended to say it is quite true that our free republic with its liberties can't be maintained without a good measure of moral restraint in the populace.
Not to worry. I won't try and tell you anything. I'm sure no one can. ; )
What "business" has the largest number of unpaid lobbyists? Yes, the "war on drugs" is a business which distributes billions of taxpayer dollars to its supporters. Of course, as we know, some of those supporters also get paid directly by the drug business.
What penalties do you advocate for simple possession of pot?
Right now, we have the big two drugs in our society (tobacco and alcohol). If marijuana were legalized, the big two would immediately become the big three.
That has not been the case with the Dutch, whose rates of mj use are lower than in the US. The following from the USDOJ demonstrate what a failure prohibition has been. Note the irony in the title, as the article presents statistics which refute its own premise:
Legalization has been tried before, and failed miserably.
It's clear from history that periods of lax controls are accompanied by more drug abuse and that periods of tight controls are accompanied by less drug abuse.
In 1880, many drugs, including opium and cocaine, were legal — and, like some drugs today, seen as benign medicine not requiring a doctor's care and oversight. Addiction skyrocketed. There were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S [50,000,000 census in 1880 =0.8% addiction rate- ken h]. That is twice as many per capita as there are today.
By 1900, about one American in 200 [=0.5%] was either a cocaine or opium addict. [end excerpt]
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm
______________________________________
My calculations show that opiate addiction dropped from 0.8% in 1880 to at least 0.5% in 1900. That is at least a 37.5% reduction. If you toss out cocaine addicts included in the 1900 figure, the drop would be even greater. Now on to 2000:
______________________________________
"There were an estimated 980,000 hardcore heroin addicts in the United States in 1999, 50 percent more than the estimated 630,000 hardcore addicts in 1992."
--www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/heroin.htm
"The demand for both powdered and crack cocaine in the United States is high. Among those using cocaine in the United States during 2000, 3.6 million were hardcore users who spent more than $36 billion on the drug in that year."
--http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/cocaine.htm
_______________________________
Using year 2000 figures from the USDOJ, and a population of 290,000,000, the rate of addiction to either cocaine or heroin is about 1.5%, or triple the rate in 1900.
I think the war requires multi-faceted approach. As the editorial points out, stopping use in young people will dry up demand. Also, as pointed out the breaking of the 'French Connection' in the 1970's limited supply which also caused some to quit...plus the data on alcohol use that trended down even well after Prohibition until the 1960s. Obviously there are no easy answers or it would have been accomplished decades ago...even with incompetent govermental efforts.
Many otherwise very moral people are pro-WOD because they can see the social decay and lives of individuals and their families destroyed by rampant drug usage. They find themselves helpless to do anything because even though they have strong moral beliefs against drug abuse, society has come to accept if not celebrate the defiant libertine who does it if it feels good. The individual moralist then finds himself as part of a minority willing to take personal action, but part of a majority willing to have action taken on their behalf. Many who tolerate the crack house down the street, and sell their goods and services to drug and alcohol abusers, and buy tickets to movies that condone drug usage, will vote for candidates who "promise to do something," about the drug problem. They relinquish this duty for self-governance (itself an immoral act) because the immorality of the behavior (drug usage) is one that affects them personally and not because it is simply wrong. To consider this behavior simply wrong and act on that basis would require an acknowledgment of black and white morality, and dare I say, belief in a higher authority that grants both our freedoms and dictates the responsible use thereof.
What these persons fail to realize is that there IS an inextricable and insoluble linkage between the rights and responsibilities of self governance, and once the responsibilities have been turned over to bureaucrats, the rights will inevitably follow suit.
What is the solution? Barring a return to the basic social mores and general acceptance of the existence of moral absolutes, there may not be one. Franklin warned us that we may find ourselves in such a predicament when he admonished, "A Republic...if you can keep it."
We are still a nation of laws and I'm not (in the strictest definition of the word) advocating vigilantism. We have sadly, lost sight of the notion that Nature's Law is preeminent to, and should serve as the basis for man's law. Man's law, in and of itself, is rooted in nothing firmer than the latest fashion and eventually loses any semblance to morality. The SS officer on a Jew hunt was acting under full authority of the law, although his actions were, needless to say, immoral. The citizen who lied to the SS about the Jews hiding in the attic was violating the reich's law, but acting in a virtuous and highly moral capacity.
While we remain free to do so, when we choose to abandon belief in an immutable creator, we abandon our belief in the source of our inalienable rights. When we ridicule the notion of a creator, we diminish the vitality and sanctity of those rights. When we try to replace the creator with something less than eternal, we must acknowledge that the source of our rights is likewise, ephemeral. At that point it merely becomes a matter of selecting an expiration date.
Let's compromise, I am all for robbing hookers.
Hmmm. The problem with that statement, IMO, is that the WoDs started before more than a small minority of the population had abandoned moral/ethical self-restraint. Being told what to do by an inappropriate authority often results in doing the opposite even if self-destructive.
What these persons fail to realize is that there IS an inextricable and insoluble linkage between the rights and responsibilities of self governance, and once the responsibilities have been turned over to bureaucrats, the rights will inevitably follow suit.
Without a doubt! Actions have inevitable consequences.
While we remain free to do so, when we choose to abandon belief in an immutable creator, we abandon our belief in the source of our inalienable rights. When we ridicule the notion of a creator, we diminish the vitality and sanctity of those rights.
I don't ridicule that notion at all but as a Buddhist I don't personally have any notion of that. For me it is simply a matter of 'right-action' or wrong action. An action either benifits self and others or it harms self and others. The consequences of both are certain. Don't get me wrong, I think I have argued better than most that founding our nation on the concept that rights are inherent and inalienable is a stroke of genius and unique to us and our success as a nation. If you want to see an example of that I will FReep-mail you a letter-to-the-editor I wrote in response to an idiot town council member who started a firestorm by claiming that the Pledge violated his 1st A. rights. It's too long to post here. I gotta go for now though. Lot's to do before the sun sets.
Maybe those are just the wrong answers. Just a thought.
"(I don't ridicule that notion at all but) as a Buddhist I don't personally have any notion of that. For me it is simply a matter of 'right-action' or wrong action. An action either benefits self and others or it harms self and others. The consequences of both are certain."
I think you may have more of a notion than you may be aware of...
What differentiates a, "right action" from a, "wrong action"? Who or what defines them as such? My knowledge of Buddhism (and everything else for that matter) is limited yet I think we can agree that the individual can not be made the arbiter of right or wrong. What happens when two individuals disagree? Clearly, a nation as a collection of persons, or a government that represents and rules over those persons can not be the arbiter as per my prior example of nazi germany.
Is it a mere biological imperative as what is "right" for you and others? I can tell that you are a reasonably spiritual person, and I'd guess that you would rush into a burning building to try and save a child trapped inside. While that might be "right" for the child, the risk to yourself would certainly not be in your personal interest, nor as a, "pack behavior," you are assuming the risk of losing two with only the possible benefit of saving one, so it's a behavior that is not necessarily going to benefit the pack or community. What then makes it right? (provided my initial assumption, that you would find it right to attempt the rescue, is correct).
I'm not trying to be argumentative and am eagerly awaiting your reply simply for that reason...I'm truly interested in your resolution and opinion on this question...
Actually, from the standpoint of the government, it has.
The drug prohibition laws are the reason that the federal government is in control of all health care, and the reason health care expenditures have increased from 1.5% of GDP in the 1950s to 15% of GDP today.
In other words, you have the controlled substance laws to thank for making a trip to the hospital a potential one-way trip to bankruptcy.
Outstanding...I agree with every single word you posted, but these ten words competely gets to the core of the issue.
A truly memorable post, and I only have one thing to add...
" It has accomplished nothing useful."
Look at it from the other side. The WOD has built many careers both bureaucratic and political. It's allowed the re-direction of billions of tax dollars and built the largest group of para-military police forces in the world. It's allowed increasing consolidation of power into the hands of violent authoritarians. So if you're a drug warrior or politican the WOD has been a Godsend.
Then the government could get on about the business of doing what a government is supposed to do, protect the people and promote the general welfare, narrowly defined. The churches could get about the business of doing what they do, teaching God's word and encouraging the masses to follow it.
Although friction between government and the church has existed since the founding of the church it has usually been a power struggle about who is in charge, the preachers or the government or, said another way, the people or the government. That is not necessary if we would follow the teachings of Jesus and give unto the government what is the government's and unto God what is God's. That is basically a separation of the physical and the spiritual.
"So much Bitterness on this thread"
Wow. I agree. I had not idea that this would spark so much controversy...oh well, it had made for an interesting Saturday.
Quite the contrary, Servant. It has been extremely useful in obliterating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is the gift that keeps giving to the government.
Read through the last 30 years of supreme court rulings, and you'll see that the worst of them have the WOD as a basis.
One point I'd like to make was taken up by earlier posters who argued that societal pressures can be as or more effective than "enforcement". From your quote...
By 1900, about one American in 200 [=0.5%] was either a cocaine or opium addict.
If you look at the history of what was going on in society, opium use started rising after the civil war (many wounded soldiers became addicts after having been treated for battlefield wounds). Addiction rates rose, but never amounted to a great percentage of the population even though everything including heroin was completely legal. Then, around 1880, (which is why those numbers were cited by the study btw, because usage peaked then), people started seeing ill effects of addiction. Society itself (absent laws) ceased to sanction misuse of the drugs, so the rates started dropping.
The movements towards criminalization started in the early part of the 20th century were largely racist in nature, much like the Sullivan Laws passed in the 'teens. Pot was targeted as evil because it was mostly used amongst hispanic communities for example.
Anywhere prohibition rears it's evil head, death, destruction and misery will soon follow. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the worst and most liberty-destroying supreme court decisions of the passt 50 years or so almost all, have at their roots, the prosecution of the WOD.
One thing that I find to be interesting about many of those decisions, is that if you start following the precidence trail backwards, you find a basis in cases involving prohibition of alcohol. At the time, there was a constitutional amendment making alcohol illegal for all practical purposes, so the constitutional basis of the cases was solid. However, Prohibition was repealed! Should not the basis for these supreme court decisions have been repealed as well? Also, I can find no amendment for prohibition of pot, cocaine, or heroin. Too bad none of the justices has an interest in the history of what they rule upon.
I have to disagree. For the most part, it's been well argued all around with little of the invective inherrent in such threads. I wish more threads on this subject (and others) were like that.
Nobody ever said a highly limited legalization would have any benefits (beyond those to patients).
Drug abusers are always looking for the quick fix -- the highest quality for the greatest possible high. There's no other social explanation for why some moron would be willing to inject black tar heroin into his forearm or smoke stuff that's been melted in a plastic spoon.
The idiots who drank bathtub gin druing Prohibition were nonetheless happy to switch to a legal regulated product when Prohibition was ended.
we do have to stand for some degree of social decency, or we'll be left with the liberal "do it because it feels good" paradise.
Government has neither the legitimate authority nor the practical capability of imposing "social decency."
Governmental action will never control drugs in our country ... but it may well decimate our freedoms in the attempt, as in countries like Iran and China, who have precious little freedom but still have significant drug problems.
Don't try to tell me that the overall cost to society, in terms of lost productivity and auto accidents, wouldn't be greater than whatever we spend on the WOD.
To restrict adults' liberties in order to keep them productive is immoral. (What's next: mandatory bedtimes?)
"But we'll never win the war on drugs". Well, we'll never keep people from robbing banks or going to hookers, so what's your solution, legalize them both?
Yes to the latter, because (like drug sale and use) it violates no rights; no to the former, because it does.
Do you regard Prohibition as a success? Should it not have been ended?
Alcohol IS a drug ... and a deadly, addictive, violence-inducing drug, at that.
You are correct. I should have said as bad as the forbidden drugs.
I haven't seen your replies as argumentative at all and have enjoyed this exchange. Sorry you have had to wait for a reply but it was necessary to tackle some offline projects.
We are diverging pretty far from the subject of the thread so I hope we aren't irritating anyone but it is a short thread whose life is otherwise winding down.
I think you may have more of a notion than you may be aware of...
Fair enough. It's a doctrinal question or a question of 'view' of what ultimate reality is. I probably didn't even need to say it. The bottom line is my view is that life is sacred and human life is the most precious of all. (FWIW that view is not formed from a self-centered egoistic point of reference but from the recorded observations of the unique qualities of human consciousness, in terms of the abilities and opportunities to grow spiritually, as compared with other sentient beings.)
That bottom line in spiritual view leads to my bottom line views about our form of government in this case my unshakable reverence and profound gratefulness for the wording of the DoI which lays the source of basic human rights forever outside, or above, the reach of men. I guess I just wanted to put forth that there are other views of reality that can unhesitatingly embrace TJ's declaration without the slightest modification.
Maybe that's my ego but I have a persistent nagging in my mind that it can be useful for both patriot Believers and self-loathing secular humanist Americans to hear that. I rarely point directly to my spiritual path or views to clarify my opinions but the efforts to polarize Constitution supporting 'right-wing Christians' from the Constitution and DoI need to be neutralized. My existence alone is proof that Believers are not alone in taking the DoI at face value. The malicious intent of that attempt to co-opt its meaning compels me to speak up and contradict it. OK, that is ego, but hey! I'm an American!!!
What differentiates a, "right action" from a, "wrong action"?
Ahh, now we get right to a tough nut of a question. My short answer was in my last post; "An action either benefits self and others or it harms self and others." But you wanted a little more clarification on that.
...yet I think we can agree that the individual can not be made the arbiter of right or wrong.
On that I disagree. We can choose what or who or how to find wisdom but in the end we each have to make our own decisions as to what is right and wrong what is beneficial and what is harmful.
What happens when two individuals disagree? Clearly, a nation as a collection of persons, or a government that represents and rules over those persons can not be the arbiter as per my prior example of nazi germany.
Two individuals don't really have to agree about what is right and wrong. If they can agree that's fine and they can then work together. If they can't they each have to draw their own boundaries, decide what is acceptable from others for themselves, and act accordingly. One or both may lack wisdom in their actions but, lacking a controlling authority (which was not a given in this equation) there is nothing else that can happen there. There are only those two parties in the interaction and each will act and react in the way each sees as best.
It is really the same with a group of people such as a nation. It just seems more complicated because of competing attachments and aversions. Per your example; a citizen of Nazi Germany would become pulled in different directions by love of country, love of life, spiritual and moral convictions etc. In the end the individual decides to do what they believe is best. Aversions based on fear play into it too obscuring wisdom as well.
In the case of our nation we have already agreed to the covenant of the DoI and the Constitution. Those who don't respect that do so at their peril. Those of us who ignore their disrespect do so at all our peril. It's as simple as that. The challenge to overcome temptations to compromise our highest ideals is never ending.
I imagine your concern is how a nation endures with so many divergent views and interests trying to direct it. A nation, like an individual, requires a solid foundation a, clear view of its purpose and a population of citizens committed to realizing their collective (but not necessarily uniform) potential within that view and on that foundation. We were blessed with the best of foundations. Not perfect but damn good! We have had times of great vision, mediocre vision and damnable vision but that will always be in flux. We have had eras of great common commitment to the national purpose too but not always in concert with a wise or noble purpose. WWI perhaps is an example of falling short in that.
Like an individual the best of nations will stumble, but even as the most devoted spiritual practitioner, the fallen nation can get up, dust off and recommit itself to growth. The only other choice is to fall into chaos, dissolution and death.
Clearly the leftist 'vision' is nothing more than a capitulation to the latter. A rejection of self. The national equivalent of depression and despair. I think it is something other than a lack of a moral or ethical center in them. I see it as a denial of and ignorance of the reality I just described. That, of course, leads to immoral and unethical views but ignorance of the reality of the choices to be made and the consequences of them is the root cause of that instability.
(Answers to your next paragraph in the next post)
Simple: the War On Drugs has driven the drug business underground, whereas any legal business is conducted openly and thus subject to effective regulation (and sometimes overregulation).
I don't know which is the kinder assumption: that Will and Walters are too dumb to realize this, or that they're peddling arguments they know to be false.
Walters [...] thinks indifference to drug abuse, which debilitates the individual's capacity to flourish in freedom, mocks the nation's premises.
So Will and Walters think the only alternative to indifference is government involvement. That's what liberals always argue.
No I would call it spiritual. It is based on the desire for the greatest good for all sentient beings.
I'd guess that you would rush into a burning building to try and save a child trapped inside.
I would like to think I would. I think the chances are that I would. It would depend on my ability to overcome my fear, the selfishness of thinking of my self as an enduring being of some importance. That is my aim in all things but without prior experience in rescue and firefighting my fear of a situation like that might overwhelm the experience of my practice in selflessness. You can see what my desired intent is though. I would like to be the rescuer.
While that might be "right" for the child, the risk to yourself would certainly not be in your personal interest, nor as a, "pack behavior," you are assuming the risk of losing two with only the possible benefit of saving one, so it's a behavior that is not necessarily going to benefit the pack or community.
With respect, my POV is that it would be in my self-interest. If I succeed in the rescue I have overcome a huge obstacle of fear that keeps me mired in the illusion of self-importance. Also IMV every positive action benefits the "community" or, in keeping with my chosen tradition, all sentient beings. The suggestion of "pack behavior", as I understand that phrase, that my living is itself a benefit to the community, the "collective," is not on my radar. That is a part of socialist/communist ideology that maintains that individuals have an obligation to society to be of profit to it (other than the basic obligation of loyalty that binds us to a self-preserving duty to support our nation through such things as voluntary service and abiding by Constitutional laws). You have no need to debate that with me, I loathe socialism/communism. Give me liberty or give me death! ; )
What then makes it right? (provided my initial assumption, that you would find it right to attempt the rescue, is correct).
Even you hesitated to say that the rescue was right in absolute terms by putting 'right' in quotation marks in the beginning of your question. I think it would be right because I think life is sacred. I think it's sacred because I see that everyone has the potential to grow and overcome the delusions of sentient beings that keep us separated from the knowledge of ultimate reality. But I acknowledge that I am separated from that knowledge, from omniscience, and it is possible that rescuing the child might cause it or others great suffering. I might be saving the life of the next Hitler. But I can only act on what I know from the desire to do the greatest good just as the drunk in the gutter takes another drink because, to the best of his knowledge, he is doing what is best for himself. Perhaps something will awaken clairvoyance in me one day, just as something may awaken the drunk to the reality of what alcohol is doing to him, but for now we each have to work with what we've got.
I bet that we would both agree that rescuing the child was best, in spite of our mental/spiritual limitations, and do it without hesitation or desire for reward or approval. I have a feeling you would care as little as I would what the law or the moralists (presuming he became a serial killer) said of it. That's just something different to deal with altogether.
I seems to me like I didn't answer your question at all. I guess I can't. I support life and the liberty to live it. Because of that I oppose abortion. I feel no need to explain or justify that to anyone. I can't really prove that life is sacred but I am always open to talking about it with someone who wants to hear it whether they agree or not. I don't know any other way to be.
...While we are at minor variance on some very fine, albeit very significant issues, I'd look forward to discussing these further with you at some point. Certainly, we agree that the abandonment of moral sensibilities is a danger to our republic.
Just FYI, I was not hesitating by placing 'right' in quotation marks; I merely did so because, until your reply, I had no way of being certain you would consider it (saving the child) to be 'right.' Although I would have wagered money that you would consider it proper, I've otherwise tried to abandon the vanity of presuming other persons thoughts.
I find your hypothetical regarding the child as the next Hitler intriguing. From where I sit (to my knowledge nowhere near a burning building at present), I would consider it right to save the child even if I knew he would be the next Hitler, Manson, etc. Such people do not typically assume their mantle of infamy by themselves, but only through enablers, those who turn a blind eye, or even encourage behaviors that make their destinies inevitable. That's one of my concerns: we are becoming a nation of enablers who turn a blind eye to immorality, or even casually joke about it. Evil is not a delicate flower that needs careful cultivation, but an infection that can thrive in any void it is permitted to. As per Burke, all it needs to succeed is inaction on the part of those who are otherwise in a position to stop it.
While I do not dwell on the concept of evil, I do spend some time thinking about it; primarily to recognize it in myself and prepare to resist whatever temptations may lie in my future....CS Lewis's "Screwtape Letters," makes for some very interesting reading in this regard.
Having said all that, saving the child, regardless of his potential for evil, is the right thing, because any evil he subsequently perpetrates will generally not be entirely attributable to him, but also to some other(s) over whom we have absolutely no influence.
We do. In my mind the primary cause of that decline is due to less and less acceptance of personal responsibility. I think that stems from a degraded and disappearing understanding of cause and effect. I think that is something that leftists, secular humanists, communists, etc. have cultivated in this country. It is not accidental. We know now that the Soviets have made specific detailed plans and efforts to bring us down from within and the left, ie socialists, have been active since far before there was a Soviet Republic.
I would consider it right to save the child even if I knew he would be the next Hitler, Manson, etc. Such people do not typically assume their mantle of infamy by themselves, but only through enablers,...
I would also consider it right. I would just put together the reasons to do it from the filter of a different lens. Seeing the future as not fixed, not even existent in any given present moment, the child would simply be a child regardless of his potential, even if highly likely could that be seen, to become a monster of a person. I see each of us as having the greater potential to change and break out of previously established patterns and that would extend to the 'future Hitler' as well. It would not be my place to 'stop' what has not yet manifested. The only thing manifest in the given example is a child in a burning building and my knowledge of that and proximity to it. That is what I would have to base my choices on.
I tried to think of some other rationale for an example of why one might conclude that it wouldn't be right to save him but that is all I came up with. I'm glad you found it interesting to consider because I thought it was kind of a lousy example. You had already proposed the "good of the community" POV, which is far more down to earth, but that doesn't work for me in any way so I tried to think of a reason I could embrace in some way. Lacking any alternative, such as trained firemen telling you to let them handle it, if you think you can do it, and you have no other motivation beyond saving the life, then there is no reason I know of not to.
While I do not dwell on the concept of evil, I do spend some time thinking about it; primarily to recognize it in myself and prepare to resist whatever temptations may lie in my future....CS Lewis's "Screwtape Letters," makes for some very interesting reading in this regard.
It is my opinion that working on oneself is the most important thing we can do, for ourselves and everyone else, and the one thing we have the greatest power to change and the greatest assurance that the evil we are pacifying is real evil.
I've otherwise tried to abandon the vanity of presuming other persons thoughts.
Sound wisdom and a difficult practice. ; ) The more I face down my own problems the more I see how little I know of what's in other's hearts while, ironically it seems, the better I see what it is they are facing.
I appreciate the conversation. I'd be glad to discuss any thoughts you'd like to share as far as I'm able. You didn't ask for it but I think I'll send you my dissertation on the DoI anyway. It's the 'letter to editor' I mentioned. Have a good one!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.