Posted on 02/17/2005 7:37:17 PM PST by freedom44
"Rights derive from man's nature as a reasoning free-willed being, able to formulate and pursue his own ends and thus not properly treated as a means to another's ends"
We belong to a society and benefit from that society; there has to be some commonality of values and goals. As members of society we are each a part of the means to each other's ends. If you don't share the values and goal of society or don't see the benefit of belonging to society then remove yourself - it is your choice. If you don't like the rules get out; if you accept the benefits then stop whinning.
"Are you saying that if government didn't jail drug users and sellers, the mob would take the law in their own hands and overwhelm any government attempts to stop them? I have a higher opinion of the American people than that."
If we have any sense, yes. Of course, it depends on the drug. I wouldn't be too worried about a little pot. If someone is selling crack cocaine or heroin in my neighborhood then I am coming armed with my friends if the government didn't do anything.
If a drug regularly has the effect you describe, even on those not already mentally unstable, its use may violate the rights of others. Many currently illegal drugs, such as ecstasy, do not have such effects.
Sorry, it's immoral to make demands on a person because of benefits given to them, unless the person agreed to the quid pro quo beforehand or extracted those benefits by force. I benefit my neighbors when I paint my house, but that doesn't make it right for me to shake them down for the cost of the paint ... or for anything else.
The sale of legal drugs would doubtless be zoned, just as the sale of the legal drug alcohol is zoned.
They will merely be "as drunk as a lord". That by itself is not bad, but getting wasted with a shrink picking their brains? Sheesh.
A few beers with some of their buddies who have been there might be more helpful.
You chose to crawl around with stoned horny babes; other men chose military and advanced technical training with the defined purpose to kill and destroy- pushing themselves to their personal limit. Chemicals won't erase anything.
I was not allowed to join the military back in 1980 'cuz I told the Recruiter for the Air Force that I HAVE EPILEPSY. The very 1st question he asked me was "do you take any kinds of prescription medication?", & I told him "Yes, I hafta take dilantin due to my epilepsy". That's when he told me that he was sorry, but those who have epilepsy aren't eligible to join the military. THAT'S what happened back almost 25 yrs ago...how you got the message you did is beyond me.
I guess I coulda lied to him & said, "No, I'm in perfect health", but I wouldn't do that. I think this was before the military began drug testing (???). This occurred almost 6 months before President Reagan was elected.
I assumed you were joking around about chemicals. I had a seizure in August of 1979. At Lackland AFB in Texas during basic training. They gave me dilantin and a few other things. Except it wasn't an epileptic seizure. It was heat stroke after doing things in 105F and @ 85H. Dehydration. A couple of other guys also. The two weeks we layed around in the military hospital with IVs in our arms cost us 4 more weeks before graduation. I ran 1.5 miles in 13.8 minutes to graduate and fly to Denver for Tech Training for a year. Those were rough courses. 2 failures on a test and you are a civilian again. Party after passing one, but be prepared for the next one. I never studied longer and harder over more hours than I was there. Those military tech instructors are 10 times more demanding than any college. The difference is they command your attention at all times to learn things quickly.
"The sale of legal drugs would doubtless be zoned..."
Why the need for zoning? Which drugs will be zoned? Which drugs will be baned out right? Which drugs will require no zoning whatsoever? Who will make these decisions?
"Sorry, it's immoral to make demands on a person because of benefits given to them, unless the person agreed to the quid pro quo beforehand or extracted those benefits by force."
Is it immoral for parents to make demands of their children? What child has ever signed a form in the womb giving his/her agreement to this arrangement beforehand? This relationship between parent and child is the way of nature, as are the tacit agreements of behavior between a society as a whole and the individuals that make up that society. There is no issue or morality or immorality - it is just nature.
Most communities want their residential areas to be for residence only.
Who will make these decisions?
Local communities, who are the ones directly affected. How, say, San Francisco regulates drugs affects me not at all.
I meant my statements to apply to adults.
as are the tacit agreements of behavior between a society as a whole and the individuals that make up that society.
Tyranny of the majority is in some sense "natural" ... but it's a part of our nature we should strive to rise above, as we strive to rise above the natural desire to kill those who anger us, or to pursue sex with every attractive woman we see.
"I meant my statements to apply to adults."
Who defines what is meant by "adult?" And in regards to your previous statement:
"it's immoral to make demands on a person because of benefits given to them, unless the person agreed to the quid pro quo beforehand..."
Do you think it is immoral to punish a pedophile in spite of the fact that he did not agree beforehand to society's generally agreed upon definition of "adult" and "minor?"
"Tyranny of the majority is in some sense "natural" ... but it's a part of our nature we should strive to rise above"
There is no need to rise above our nature - the need is to channel and redirect our natural dispositions in a manner that they become constructive to the goals of society as a whole. This is why we think killing over a trifle or indiscriminate sex are undesirable - because they are not conducive to a harmonious, productive society. In the correct circumstances killing and unwanton sex could be useful behaviors otherwise we would not have capability to engage in them.
Society does ... but society does not have the natural right to define adulthood to begin at, say, 40. The definition, to be legitimate, must be in accord with observable facts about human psychological maturation.
Do you think it is immoral to punish a pedophile in spite of the fact that he did not agree beforehand to society's generally agreed upon definition of "adult" and "minor?"
No, because his lack of agreement does not change the objective facts about who is and is not capable of giving meaningful consent. That has no bearing on your flawed "benefits" argument.
the need is to channel and redirect our natural dispositions in a manner that they become constructive to the goals of society as a whole. This is why we think killing over a trifle or indiscriminate sex are undesirable
We think killing over a trifle violates natural rights; see the Declaration of Independence. As for indiscriminate sex, I agree that it is undesirable, but I don't think society has any legitimate authority to generally ban it; do you?
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.