Posted on 08/23/2002 12:42:18 AM PDT by Schmedlap
A few issues, regarding the legalization of drugs that are currently illegal:
1) I have observed that many who object to the legalization of narcotics assume that legalization of private possession and use of narcotics also implies the legalization of criminal activities done under the influence of drugs. I do not understand this leap. In what way does not arresting people who use drugs in the privacy of their home imply that a police officer will just wave to a passing crack head, as he drives by at 80 miles per hour, smoking a crack pipe.
2) I have also observed that many who object to the legalization of narcotics assume that people who support legalization simply wants to use drugs - as if this matters. First off, the motivations of the proponents of legalization do nothing to alter the substance or lack thereof of their argument. But, just to address this wildly popular notion: I, for one, have no desire to use any drug that is currently illegal, nor do I hope to need or desire any drug that is legal for medicinal or recreational purposes. I rarely even drink beer. My objection to the government prohibition on certain drugs is on the grounds that what people do in the privacy of their homes is none of the government’s business, so long as it does not violate the rights of others. Whether you want to possess drugs, weapons, or beanie babies should be no concern of your neighbor, your police department, or any echelon of government, so long as it does not violate the rights of others. If you have 10 pounds of plutonium, for instance, that violates the rights of your neighbors. If you have 10 pounds of cocaine, that does not violate anybody’s rights.
3) Likewise, I do not understand why proponents of legalizing drugs take such weak stances in favor of it, such as “well, alcohol is worse for you than pot, and alcohol is legal.” This assumes that the government's actions can be justified by their probability of positively influencing your health. Evidence exists that smoking is worse for your health than alcohol, as well. Should we ban cigarettes and arrest anyone who purchases, distributes, or smokes them? Since when is it the government’s responsibility to protect a person from himself? The purpose of government is to secure our rights, by protecting private property, and attempting to safeguard us from hurting each other. In other words, government’s role is to stop a man about to commit murder, not to stop a terminally ill cancer patient about to euthanize himself.
The bottom line is that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is none of the government’s business, nor is it the business of you or I, so long as people do not do direct harm to one another, one another’s property, or otherwise violate one another’s rights. Neither I, nor my government, have the right to tell you that you cannot snort cocaine in your home, whether you want to do it or not. The government has the right, and the duty, to arrest you if you attempt to drive on a public road, while under the influence of a drug, while impaired visually or mentally, or even if you have not had sufficient sleep to stay awake, while driving.
I welcome thoughtful responses to this post; particularly those which refute any of the arguments above, or offer suggestions to strengthen the arguments.
I don't find it acceptable. It's an example of tyranny of the majority.
Whether or not the prohibited activity is one that a co-owner enjoys is of no significance in the matter of whether or not the prohibition applies equally to all.
Not even close to relevant. I am trying to get at why the prohibitions are established to start with.
As to the remainder of your post that I have not responded to (I responded to the property issue in a previous post), most of it is not relevant to what I am trying to ask of you either. I note that you seem to be saying that laws are made on behalf of the majority to the detriment of the minority, arbitrarily, for no particular reason other than that they can be so made. Tyranny of the majority again. And the use of force in the execution of that tyranny.
And your arguments are not persuasive to your cause. Note the following:
As members of civil society, we vest in the legislators the right to agree upon rules pertaining to our society. The compromises pertaining to civil society are made on our behalf by the legislature in whom we vest the right and power to make such compromises. The decision of the legislature, to enact laws within the bounds of its rights to decide on, is the equivalent of each individual agreeing upon such laws, because the legislature acts on behalf of all citizens, by whom it has been given the right and power to do so.
Just like the rights pertaining to a society formed by two people are defined by those activities that each agrees upon, our rights in society at large are defined by laws pertaining to our activities and behavior in, society because those laws are an expression of our agreements, as members of society. It is by this reasoning that the citizen being arrested for using illegal drugs has agreed to his own arrest, if he violates the laws regarding such use. He agreed to this law. His agreement is expressed by the law governing society, which was formulated by the legislature, in whom he vested his right to determine acceptable behavior in the society of which he is a member.
Those are mostly your words and ideas. I just substituted the concept of society for the concept of public property and made other changes necessitated by that change.
Your arguments are not sufficient for your ends, electronic verbosity does not improve them and a stronger argument hinges on the answer to a question you don't seem to understand.
But keep trying. One reason I've gone with you as far as I have is that you seem to be trying to think things through, which can not be said of everyone.
Furthermore, by definition, a person's property rights are natural and inalienable.
Inalienable means inseperable. Your statement would mean that a person can't transfer ownership of the person's property, therefore I must disagree because a person certainly can do so.
To separate the consciousness from the body would be for the person to cease to exist,…
OK. A person's human body and a person's consciousness are inalienable to each other. Property is separable--alienable-- from a person. It is owned. A person can transfer ownership. In the matter at hand, you can't separate what you call the property without destroying the person, the owner. If you own it, you can transfer ownership.
…thus so long as a person exists, that person has a right to own his or her body.
So long as a person exists, the person has as one of his or her constituent components, a body. That's not ownership. That's not property.
Because a person cannot exist without a human body or without the capacity for consciousness, a person's natural rights are contingent upon possession of his body and the capacity to have consciousness.
In other words, a person's natural rights are contingent upon the person's being alive. OK.
A person has rightful possession of his or her body.
That implies a person could exist without a body. You've already argued against that.
It is by this inalienable right to possession of one's body that people have natural rights.
No, it is by a person's existence as a person that the person has natural rights, which are unalienable.
On the definition of property, I'd say it's closer to a tangible possession owned by someone. Property can't be inalienable because property is owned and if something is owned, ownership can be transferred but something that is inalienable is inseparable and therefore can't be transferred. That's why you as a person can't own your body as property. When your body is separated from your consciousness, you cease to exist. Property is also not defined per se by law, although law affects ownership. If I am alone in the forest I can own my walking stick as my property outside of any laws or society. I own it by dent of my right to liberty-to take action to take possession of the stick.
However, do we not have the ability to maintain possession of our person?
"We" are "our person."
Do we not achieve the sovereignty of our individuality by way of defending ourselves against aggression from other individuals?
We are born with the sovereignty of our individuality.
The bounds of an individual's natural rights are that he may not initiate coercion or fraud against any individual's property.
Not exactly. Rights are bounded by the rights of others.
The only exception to this being that he may initiate coercion in self-defense against those who initiate coercion or fraud against his property.
This does not necessarily apply to your body, if your body is not your property. What, in that case, would be the justification for self-defense?
The unalienable rights to life and liberty as bounded by the rights of others.
Is this description of natural rights inadequate and/or incorrect?
Yes
I have responded within the framework of your argument as best I could. My argument would be different.
And I still have not seen 'the premise that your body is your property' substantiated nor have I seen a case made to take it as a first principle.
But I do note that in response to my assertion that Having land as property is initially achieved by staking off the piece of it you want and keeping others off of it by use of force, or losing it to them through their use of force.
You responded:
That is likely how it was first determined who owned what land…
and you continued:
I agree that, more or less, we obtain land as property by what you typed above.
This leads me to offer the following, much of which I plagiarized so you may have to go to the author if you don't like it or you need more details:
Having land as property is initially achieved by staking off the piece of it you want and keeping others off of it by use of force, or losing it to them through their use of force. That gets messy before too long and as people come to form an orderly society the members of the society are motivated to establish rules in regard to this property.
The motivation that serves as a basis for the members of society to agree upon the rules pertaining to the property in question is to accommodate a compromise between conflicting rights. The rationale is that such conflicting rights are inevitable, and a greater number of conflicts will arise, as the number of members of society increases while the amount of land available for ownership stays the same. Thus, a compromise must be agreed upon.
The members of society including those who own land compromise by yielding rights that conflict. To that end the members of society establish rules for the regulation and transfer of real property, meaning land and its improvements. They also establish rules for the use thereof. Maybe they should not but they do. They do this through governments, through legislators. They vest, in their legislators, the right and power to decide, on their behalf, what behaviors in regard to real property they approve of . Therefore, they cannot, as individuals, arbitrarily decide what they can and can't do with this real property, because they have given that right to the legislature, to exercise on their behalf, as part of establishing rules for the retention and transfer of property without resorting to force.
They are motivated to task government with enforcement of the rules so established. The motivation for this is to ensure objective enforcement of said rules. The rationale for tasking government with objective enforcement, rather than relying on individuals to solve their own problems, is that the inherent self-interest of man will cloud his judgment and men of weaker character may even knowingly violate the rules in pursuit of self-interest. They find it logical and convenient to task government with ensuring that laws are applied even-handedly, because they can use government to choose individuals of sound character and skill to act as third parties overseeing objective enforcement of the rules. The rationale for this is that a third party lacking self-interest in a matter will be more capable of determining and exercising objective enforcement.
When laws pertaining to real property are set forth by a legislature, in whom the right and power to do so has been vested by the citizenry, there is, by definition, no denial of the peoples' rights in regard to that property. All rights in regard to that property are defined by the rules pertaining to the property as established by those in whom the power to do so is vested.
It is by this reasoning that the citizen being arrested for using drugs on private property agreed to his own arrest, if he violates the rules governing real property. He agreed to these rules. His agreement is expressed by the law governing real property, which was formulated by the legislature, in whom he and his fellow members of society vested there right to determine acceptable rules in regard to real property.
I would not say that.
What kind of mutual agreement between land owners would not be tyranny?
The kind that is actually mutual.
In the examples, the minority gives up something of value (free use) to the will of the majority while the majority gives up nothing., only allowing the minority some use the minority had before, but on the majority's terms. The majority does this for the sake of nothing that is apparent other than that they desire to do so and have the power to do so.
Prohibitions are established in response to conflicts between desires and rights.
Now that's new, although I think I incorporated it into my comments somewhere here. You appear to be asserting that desires trump rights, provided the desires are those of the majority.
Does this answer the question?
No. See below.
Perhaps if you can direct me to where I made such statements or implications I can clarify.
Where did I advocate making arbitrary laws for no particular reason, other than that they can be so made?
Everywhere you assert that the majority can, even through government, restrict the minority but you do not provide an adequate reason as to why the majority does so other than the circular "they can." OK, they can. They have superior force. But for the sake of what are they doing so? Where is the conflict of rights that is being resolved? So far, you have not stated that the minority has tried to do anything but exercise their property rights in accordance with their desires, and that, for some reason, the majority doesn't want them to do so and stops them from doing so because the majority has superior force by reason of being the majority.
The altered version of my argument that you gave in support of this is a straw man.
It was not meant to be a straw man. It was meant to be a general application of your hypothesis as a test of its validity.
As I outlined in my last post, property rights are the basis of all other rights and they exist whether society exists or not. You wrote that property rights, "... are established in law, by people organized into a particular society."
I wrote: "This property rights argument centers on "real property" or real estate. Such rights are established in law, by people organized into a particular society.
And I wrote: "Property rights are contingent upon the ability (in terms of sentience, resource availability, etc.) to take possession of something as property." I mostly meant that in relation to personal property, but it is applicable to real property too I suppose.
And further, I wrote:
"In regard to real property, which I believe generally means land: Having land as property is initially achieved by staking off the piece of it you want and keeping others off of it by use of force, or losing it to them through their use of force." (As I recall you agreed with that.)
And I assert that societies do establish rights in law to real property as a means of lessening the use of force and consequent bloodshed involved in keeping or losing it.
I couldn't disagree more and I think that this is the root of our overall disagreement on this matter.
Since you are disagreeing with my contention that real property (real estate) rights are not established in law by people organized into particular societies, then I guess you are willing and able to demonstrate that no society has laws establishing such rights. Don't do it though. I am not interested in that. Even if I stipulated your property rights position, we'd still disagreeing because you can't answer the question I am asking in a way that makes sense to me and apparently the question does not make sense to you even when I try and put it in your terms. because you asked:
Which question is this?
So I repeat:
"Why does the government have this right and duty if there is no direct harm or violation of rights? If one drives while impaired, but makes it from the point of departure to the point of arrival without causing any harm, what is the rationale for the government's 'right and duty'?"
Or in other words:
Given that the government has this right and duty, … if rules governing the action are agreed upon by the owner(s) of the property and the citizenry tasks the government with objectively enforcing the rules pertaining to the behavior in question. and given that The owners of the public property - the citizens - have established a rule that forbids driving while intoxicated on public property but that Citizens have the right to use public property in any manner that they see fit, so long as they do not violate the rights of others by what right do the citizens who comprise the group of owners of public property make rules and task the government to enforce them on other citizens who are a subset of the group of owners of public property, when those rules deny these other citizens the right to use public property in any manner that they see fit, so long as they do not violate the rights of others thereby denying these other citizens their rights even though they have not violated the rights of others because if a citizen drives while impaired, but makes it from the point of departure to the point of arrival without causing any harm, that citizen has not violated anyone's rights, therefore that citizen has not already agreed to such action to be taken against him, by way of agreeing to the equal application of this law that does not violate any citizen's rights because it is a law that violates the rights of that citizen?
What is the rationale or motivation that serves as a basis for the owners of the property to agree upon the rules pertaining to the behavior in question and to then task the government with objectively enforcing the rule?
And in still other words: For the sake of what? To what end? For what purpose? To settle conflict between what actions which are assumed by both sides to be in accord with their rights?
Bear in mind that without commenting on the correctness of any of your previous answers, I can say that they are not responsive to the intent of the question. Try thinking in another direction.
I don't see why the difference. It could be true for a federal government in the same way it is true for a local government: because it was agreed to. Besides, I did not believe we were addressing specific forms of government other than that they are representative.
In regards to private property, isn't the result of this tyranny of the majority?
I tend to think so.
If a party agrees to accept the majority position, whether that party is in the majority or not, then is this:
a) tyranny
b) recognition of a contract, in spite of disagreement
c) something else
Could be any of those.
Remember, I said that I plagiarized much of what you are asking about and that you might have to go to the author if you don't like it or you need more details.
“Keep in mind that we are discussing this particular issue in the context of public property.”
I thought we were discussing rights in regard to doing drugs. You seem to think its OK to forbid this in circumstances where you think it should be forbidden and that its not OK to forbid it in circumstances where you don't think it should be forbidden. I'm trying to get you to think out a stronger rationale that can be applied to other things as a more general rule and you don't seem to be able to do it. Even your property argument boils down to it's OK to forbid it in circumstances where you think it should be forbidden and it's not OK to forbid it in circumstances where you don't think it should be forbidden.
Your naked people on stilts argument isn't applicable to a situation where all concerned are co-owners.
Likewise, in regards to laws on public property, they are established to resolve conflicts between conflicting rights and between conflicting desires – and desires are arbitrary things.
But from what you've written so far, I can't see any clear statement of a conflict in rights in regard to use of the public roads. The only thing I see so far is the limitation on the rights of the minority of co-owners that the majority imposes just because they desire to do so, and that undermines the concept of property rights. While laws may be established to resolve conflicts between conflicting desires, any conflict between a right and a desire must be settled in favor of the right. Like you said, desires are arbitrary. Rights are not, although it can seem that way when trying to figure them out. If you are a co-owner of property, other co-owners should not be able to limit your use of the property just because they desire to. You have to be imposing on their rights in some way. And you are not imposing on their rights if you are only doing something they dislike.
In drafting laws pertaining to public property, the majority has superior force by way of being the majority, because the population has agreed to accept majority decisions, so long as the laws apply equally to all.
If that is true, then it follows that it is also true that: In drafting laws pertaining to society, the majority has superior force by way of being the majority, because the population has agreed to accept majority decisions, so long as the laws apply equally to all. Thus, you should have no quarrel with the laws on drug use.
If it is a violation of their rights, then your question is moot.
The question is of significance because you seem to think it is not a violation of their rights. The drunk driver has agreed to the laws in question in the same way that you have agreed to the laws against doing dope. You seem to think this is an acceptable situation in the case of the drunk driver, but not in the case of doing dope. In both cases, it is the desires of the majority that are being put into effect.
Replace “real” with “public” and that is what I’m saying.
And I was paraphrasing you in my argument that property rights, in particular real property rights, are not natural rights but are established as a matter of law along with prohibitions in their regard, when societies are formed and organized, and that in the same way rights and prohibitions are established in regrd to other things, such as doing dope. So I guess you agree with me, and we have that much settled.
So in regard to ”What is the rationale or motivation that serves as a basis for the owners of the property to agree upon the rules pertaining to the behavior in question and to then task the government with objectively enforcing the rule?”
The answer is that they think that the behavior in question (impaired driving) poses a danger and that they have the right to impose restrictions to reduce or eliminate that danger. I'm not going to give blanket approval, but much of what you have said is correct once this is understood.
The same thing can be said in regard to the question ”What is the rationale or motivation that serves as a basis for the members of society to agree upon the rules pertaining to the behavior in question and to then task the government with objectively enforcing the rule?” Only the behavior in question here can be driving while impaired while on public property or doing drugs in the privacy of your own home. The answer is still the same: They think that the behavior in question poses a danger and that they have the right to impose restrictions to reduce or eliminate that danger.
That of course leads to more questions. Does the behavior in question really pose a danger? Even if it does, is there any right to be free from danger and constrain the behavior? Can someones rights be constrained because the exercise of those rights poses a danger? And so forth.
If there is any right to do drugs or to drive while impaired, it stems from the unalienable right to liberty. ("Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." -- Thomas Jefferson )
If there is any right to prohibit doing drugs or driving while impaired, it stems from the "limits drawn by the equal rights of others."
And of course, all of this is affected by the society which the people involved have formed because when people join together in a society "...compromise must be made" and the compromises depend on the qualities of the society formed.
Apparently does not include any concept of minority rights.
Please define your understanding of the "concept of property rights."
Property right: "A generic term which refers to any type of right to specific property whether it is personal or real property, tangible or intangible."
In regard to property, a right is an "interest or title in an object of property; a just and legal claim to hold, use or enjoy it or to convey or donate it as one may please."
You could call it "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual" and say that "it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage."
I have taken liberally from Black and Madison above, but I say that property rights are contingent upon, among other things, the ability to take possession of something as property.
To use your logic:
The population agrees to accept majority decisions, in regards to matters that the majority has jurisdiction over – such as conduct in society. The majority does have jurisdiction over the behavior of a property owner on his private property because of this.
In the case of the drunk driver, he has agreed to behave on public property in a way that the majority of the public deems to be acceptable.
If he has so agreed, why is he driving while drunk?
Again, to use your logic:
In the case of the drunk driver, as a member of society he has agreed to behave on public property in a way that the majority of the public deems to be acceptable just as (i)n the case of the dope-smoker, as a member of society he has agreed to behave on his own property in a way that the majority of the public deems acceptable.
In a situation where there are co-owners, you are dismissive of the property rights of the minority of the co-owners.
What is your philosophy?
I don't know that it is as organized or complete as a philosophy, but I believe that property rights are not fundamental rights like the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If nothing else, property rights are contingent upon Mankind's ability to make something into a property. (Remember, I don't buy your "the body is propety" argument.) An individual's rights end where another individual's rights begin. There can be vast areas where it is hard to figure out where one person's rights end and another person's rights begin. One way to resolve such situations to fight it out. Another way is to weigh the cost in rights against the benefit in rights. This is essentially what people do when they form societies and agree to formal rules for dealing with property rights. These rules can vary from society to society. (I never set this down in words till you asked your question, so consider it a work in progress.)
I do not regard "conduct in society" to be something that the "majority" always has the right to deem appropriate or inappropriate, by force of law.
Me neither.
The guidelines for this are that the "majority" can only deem what is appropriate or inappropriate on its own property.
The guidelines depend on what the members of society have agreed to.
No majority has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do on my property, so long as my actions do not bring coercion or fraud against the property of another person (including the person's body).
Then the majority can not tell a person that the person cannot drive while drunk on property that belongs to that person just as much as it does to anyone else. However, the majority would have that right if it was agreed to by all that they have that right.
In regards to why the drunk driver is driving drunk, it is because, quite simply, he is reneging on his agreement.
That's an unsupported assumption. It's more likely that the drunk driver is driving drunk because he never agreed not to, or because any such agreement was coerced and is therefore invalid.
My question, more or less, was ”By what right do, or what is the rationale or motivation that serves as a basis for, the owners of the property to agree upon the rules pertaining to the behavior in question and to then task the government with objectively enforcing the rule?” (That isn't exact. The question changed a little along the way as I tried to communicate with you.)
I gave you the answer to my question by stating "..they think that the behavior in question (impaired driving) poses a danger and that they have the right to impose restrictions to reduce or eliminate that danger." (I also noted while not giving blanket approval, much of what you have said is correct once this is understood.) My answer is based on "one person's (or group's) rights end where another person's (or group's) rights begin. (And I admit that determining that point can be tricky.)
The summation of your responses seems to me to be that the majority owners do what they do for no better reason than that they can. They do not recognize their rights as being limited by the minority's rights, which even if it is because the minority signed away their rights in some agreement, seems to me to be dismissive of minority rights.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the combination of your two thoughts means:
1) You regard conduct in society to not be something that the majority has the right to deem appropriate or inappropriate.
2) However you regard the guidelines for what the majority can deem appropriate or inappropriate to depend on what the members of society have agreed to.
In regard to 1: Rights end where other rights begin. If we are writing about conduct which is a natural right, like speech (what if I said property rights?), such conduct is not something the majority has the right to deem appropriate or inappropriate absent some violation of the rights of others, like speech that is slander.
In regard to 2: To a point, but that's not where I was going. When I wrote "The guidelines depend on what the members of society have agreed to" I was considering that there have been various forms of society down through the ages and that there are various forms of society in the world today. Their members all had or have somewhat different agreements in regard to the respective societies. To the extent that we do not have a world society, the various societies in the world live in a state of nature with regard to each other. In other words, force rules.
So how do members of society agree upon what they deem to be appropriate or inappropriate?
Those with the most power come to an agreement, convince those they can and coerce the rest to their will. (The drunk driver in question may or may not have reneged on his agreement. Most likely he never agreed in the first place, though his ancestors may have. But then, did his ancestors have the right to "agree away" his minority property owner rights? If so, property rights can't be natural.) But back to the "most power." That doesn't necessarily mean physical power. It could also be intellectual, cultural, economic, religious, or any of a number of other things. The same thing could be said of "coerce."
What is the check against society agreeing that they can deem a given conduct in society to be appropriate or inappropriate?
In your world there doesn't appear to be one. Other than that, I would say it is "rights end where other rights begin" and the willingness of the society to take that as a basic principle.
I support my assumption with what I wrote in post 138, below:
...because those laws are an expression of our agreements, as co-owners.
It's an assumption that the drunk driver agreed to such an agreement and your next paragraph is based on this assumption.
It is also supported with what you wrote in post 144:
I started that part of post 144 with: This leads me to offer the following, much of which I plagiarized so you may have to go to the author if you don't like it or you need more details: Then I went on to turn your argument against you to show that society can prohibit drug use on private property.
You attribute to me: "Then the majority can not tell a person that the person cannot drive while drunk on property that belongs to that person just as much as it does to anyone else. However, the majority would have that right if it was agreed to by all that they have that right."
Then you state: It is by the reasoning in the quotes above that all have agreed; the majority does have the right to declare that no person may drive drunk on public property.
And if I was going to say that I would add "or do drugs."
But I wouldn't say that because "the reasoning in the quotes above" does not support the assumption that "all have agreed." The "reasoning in the quotes above" states "if it was agreed." It doesn't say it was actually agreed.
By the by, I don't recall (I am not going to reread it all right now) that I have basic problems with most of your comments about agreements and laws and so forth. My major problems have to do with:
1. The motivation, rationale, impetus, whatever you want to call it for prohibition. All I get from you is that the majority does it because they can and the minority agreed (freely) to this and I do not believe that is the way things actually do or should happen in society. This would mean that the majority is exercising power for the sake of exercising power and the minority agreed, for whatever reason, to be subjugated to the majority. OK, it could happen. But:
2. You didn't recognize that your argument for prohibiting drunk driving is just as valid for prohibiting doing drugs: majority rules when establishing societal prohibitions. (I don't believe that as stated by the way. And as a follow on to the "but" above: I believe the minority has rights whether or not the majority likes and recognizes it.)
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.