Conservative positions on personal responsibility: drugs, happy meals, and gambling

[Black_Rose]

This post is not about anything revolutionary or anti-capitalist, but I just wanted to point out some contradictory conservative positions.

Regarding drugs, most conservatives would argue against legalization of illicit, yet benign substances (best represented by marijuana) in order to protect children.

Yet, most conservatives who are against legalization find the notion of regulating fast food chain marketing, such as alluring children with Happy Meals, asinine. These people retort that it is the parent's responsibility to protect children from consuming unhealthy food and rebuff their uninformed requests, but it would ease the burden of parenthood if the government removes a possible temptation from the child since it is likely that parents would relent to a child's noisome request to eat that food.

Moreover, these conservative presumably endorse legalized gambling as a means of generating revenue for the state, despite the predatory nature of gambling as it disproportionately targets the economically vulnerable.

-----

As for myself, I have little use for personal responsibility, and I do not oppose policies that protect people from their self-destructive tendencies, especially if these people are pathologically addicted (a failure of free will), ignorant, or incapable of appreciating the consequences of their actions. I rather prevent any potential harm, rather than blame people from not exercising enough foresight, self-restraint, or personal responsibility. While I can respect a conservative who supports the criminalization of marijuana to reduce its accessibility, I cannot respect him/her if they also concurrently support legalized gambling and uninhibited marketing of fast food.

The obvious reasons for these inconsistent positions are economic: gambling is regressive and the benefits are distributed upwards, pot-users are stereotyped as anti-social, counterculture, rebellious slackers, and fast food chains are legitimate business enterprises symbolizing the essence of capitalism, profit for a small minority of shareholders.

[milkmiku]

This post is not about anything revolutionary or anti-capitalist, but I just wanted to point out some contradictory conservative positions.

Regarding drugs, most conservatives would argue against legalization of illicit, yet benign substances (best represented by marijuana) in order to protect children.

Yet, most conservatives who are against legalization find the notion of regulating fast food chain marketing, such as alluring children with Happy Meals, asinine. These people retort that it is the parent's responsibility to protect children from consuming unhealthy food and rebuff their uninformed requests, but it would ease the burden of parenthood if the government removes a possible temptation from the child since it is likely that parents would relent to a child's noisome request to eat that food.

Moreover, these conservative presumably endorse legalized gambling as a means of generating revenue for the state, despite the predatory nature of gambling as it disproportionately targets the economically vulnerable.

-----

As for myself, I have little use for personal responsibility, and I do not oppose policies that protect people from their self-destructive tendencies, especially if these people are pathologically addicted (a failure of free will), ignorant, or incapable of appreciating the consequences of their actions. I rather prevent any potential harm, rather than blame people from not exercising enough foresight, self-restraint, or personal responsibility. While I can respect a conservative who supports the criminalization of marijuana to reduce its accessibility, I cannot respect him/her if they also concurrently support legalized gambling and uninhibited marketing of fast food.

The obvious reasons for these inconsistent positions are economic: gambling is regressive and the benefits are distributed upwards, pot-users are stereotyped as anti-social, counterculture, rebellious slackers, and fast food chains are legitimate business enterprises symbolizing the essence of capitalism, profit for a small minority of shareholders.



You left out "usury" which both the left and right are silent on. Cash Rules Everything Around Me.

"Liberals" and "conservatives" are both center right in America and in the hands of big money.

[Railyon]

I think some people would accuse you of being "structurally antisemitist" for bringing up usury.

[Ostrinski]

cream, get the money, dolla dolla bill yaaaaall

[milkmiku]

I think some people would accuse you of being "structurally antisemitist" for bringing up usury.


I've no idea what that is. As I've been accused wrongfully of antisemitism before so I'll clarify. I mean usury as in the "charging of interest". Which is banned in the big three Abrahamic religions ironically. How is bringing up usury "structurally antisemitic", I bring it up when ever I talk about the banks in real life and now i'm afarid I've somehow offended some people.

[hatzel]

I think some people would accuse you of being "structurally antisemitist" for bringing up usury.

Oh, why you gotta do this to me, bro? I've just spent the last week or so wading through anti-Germans and their ideological forebears, and I'm just...value, value?! And bourgeois-centric conceptions of capitalism?! Down with ye!

:bored:

[Kotze]

I'll wager many conservatives are against gambling.
pot-users are stereotyped as anti-social, counterculture, rebellious slackersAnd black.
I've no idea what [structural antisemitism] is.Antisemitism is when you ascribe negative character traits to Jewish people. Structural Antisemitism is what I accuse you of when you talk about negative character traits without mentioning Jews and I'm reminded of Jews somehow by what you say, I then look for the evidence of you hinting at Jews, and the less I find, the more cunning and dangerous I conclude you must be.

[Os Cangaceiros]

And black.

Nah that's crack/coke. Meth/oxy is what white people do!

Weed is far to prevalent to be pigeonhold in a racist manner. Wasn't always that way, though. It used to be that it really was considered to be just a black/Mexican thing.

[Os Cangaceiros]

And honestly I'm not exactly sure why some conservatives are opposed to gambling. I know that there are some libertarian conservatives who support lifting restrictions on gambling, esp. internet gambling

[hatzel]

Structural Antisemitism is what I accuse you of when you talk about negative character traits without mentioning Jews and I'm reminded of Jews somehow

cunning and dangerous

J'ACCUSE!!!

...and how did we get so far off-topic exactly? :confused:

Anyway, I think the question of gambling is interesting; given the recent Grand National, it was on my mind. It's interesting that it is remarkably difficult to articulate a coherent principled opposition to gambling, making any attempt fascinating. Pragmatic opposition, perhaps, as you run the risk of losing money, but that's not exactly a principle...

[JustMovement]

Traditional argument against gambling is that it is a tax on stupidity
i.e. people are too thick to know that the house always win, it is irrational to bet £1 if the return is £100 but the odds are 1,000 to 1.

Less patronising one is that gambling preys on peoples hopes, as in desperate people waste the little money they have in the odd chance of winning the big bucks.

You can even make the argument that a ban on gambling increases peoples freedom because they are free to spend the money at a later date in constructive ways that increase their opportunities.

I think that lottery tickets should be banned for being boring, all gambling should occur in the fittingly depressing venues of bookies&shitty little casinos along with appropriate amounts of alcohol.

[hatzel]

None of these are coherent principles, though. They start from the wholly pragmatic statement to the individual - gamble and you might lose money - and expand it, calling for institutions of gambling to be outlawed, to enforce this individual non-gambling. Yet they still do nothing to explain why (indivudual) gambling is, in fact, wrong. It's only the illusion of a principle...

[JustMovement]

Well you could approach these from utilitarian paternalistic grounds, as in a ban ensures the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. i.e. similar approach to making people wear helmets on motorbikes. Then it is not that gambling is wrong, but that it diminishes total utility.

You could also make the moral argument that propreitor's of houses of gambling & even more so lottery companies are scamming their clients, making them think they can reliably make money, and so the principle would be along the lines of "don't scam people" which seems to be pretty general and not ad hoc.

[fabian]

I could be called conservative, and I do call myself that as a practicality, although I am much "worse" :D

My views include: criminalization of all drugs (including marihuana), cigarettes and tobacco smoking (and after that tobacco in general), drunkeness (and after that alcoholic drinks in general), fast food, junk food, consumption of meat and of non-organic foods. It is, IMO, nonsensical for a society to have generally available health care and in the same time tolerate practices that are unhealthy, being that 90% and more of the unhealthy conditions that man falls under are avoidable by healthy living.

As far as gambling is concerned, criminalize that too, and pay close attention on signs of other addictive behaviour among people connected to sexuality, or remnants of consumerism or remnants or various types of the entertainment industry.

[hatzel]

My views include: criminalization of all drugs (including marihuana), cigarettes and tobacco smoking (and after that tobacco in general), drunkeness (and after that alcoholic drinks in general), fast food, consumption of meat and fatty dairy products. It is, IMO, nonsensical for a society to have generally available health care and in the same time tolerate practices that are unhealthy.

s-uOlaTOUZA

I assume you will also call for all these things to be banned?

[l'Enfermé]

And honestly I'm not exactly sure why some conservatives are opposed to gambling. I know that there are some libertarian conservatives who support lifting restrictions on gambling, esp. internet gambling
Gambling isn't allowed in Islam, and since Islam is a pimped out version of Christianity, I can only assume that it's not allowed in Christianity as well(if it's not, forgive my ignorance, I come from a liberal-Muslim family so my knowledge of Christianity is limited as it was never forced on me), and since conservatives tend to be fundamentalist Christians, well, there's the answer.

Conservatives aren't exactly known for their consistent beliefs.

[fabian]

@hatzel
Being that I have suffered from illnesses in my life, and have had people close to me that too suffered from ill health, and even died, I do not consider health to be a matter of comedy; so, sorry, but I will not be watching the clip, or respond to it.

[Railyon]

Oh, why you gotta do this to me, bro? I've just spent the last week or so wading through anti-Germans and their ideological forebears, and I'm just...value, value?! And bourgeois-centric conceptions of capitalism?! Down with ye!

:bored:

Anti-Germans are fun. Totally irrelevant but highly entertaining.

[hatzel]

@hatzel
Being that I have suffered from illnesses in my life, and have had people close to me that too suffered from ill health, and even died, I do not consider health to be a matter of comedy; so, sorry, but I will not be watching the clip, or respond to it.

Once when I was a kid I was riding my trike down a hill and lost control and crashed into a wall. When I was slightly older I was riding my bike down a hill and lost control and ended up in a stinging nettle bush. Recurrent theme, it seems.

I wouldn't, however, try to make appeals to emotion by talking about my battered and bloody baby face, thinking this is a coherent argument for the prohibition of pedal-transport, hills, stinging nettles and walls. That would be utterly laughable of me...

So I ask again: do you support the banning of cars due to the risk of traffic accidents? Do you support the banning of cricket because sometimes people get hid on the head? Do you support the banning of reusing teabags for a second cup because apparently that produces carciogenic chemicals or something? Do you support the banning of course angling, because people sometimes fall in? I could go on all day like this, you know. Do you support the banning of stairs in case people trip? Do you support the banning of skiing because people always seem to be breaking their legs doing that?

I demand answers to all those questions, by the way. Anybody who wants to ban cream outright as some kind of public health measure is a fucking idiot, plain and simple. And I don't care if you or one of your friends or whoever else once downed a gallon of cream and got diarrhoea so didn't get to go to the school leavers' disco or whatever it is that convinced you that cream is the Devil incarnate, because that wouldn't be an example of something with any political importance whatsoever...

[fabian]

I wouldn't, however, try to make appeals to emotion by talking about my battered and bloody baby face, thinking this is a coherent argument for the prohibition of pedal-transport
Whereas I would find it fully appropriate that you use that argument for not responding to someone making fun of your "bloody baby face", and all other injuries that people have had while driving a bike.


do you support the banning of cars due to the risk of traffic accidents?
No, because cars do not lead to traffic accidents by default, but unhealthy food is always unhealthy, not just when you don't use it properly.
On the other hand, fossil fuels should be banned, and the use of bikes should prevale over the use of cars as being more energy efficient and healthier.


Do you support the banning of cricket because sometimes people get hid on the head?
No, because that is the same kind of false analogy that you made in the previous question. On the other hand, professional cricet should be abolished, along with professional sport in general being it is a part of capitalism and that kind of sports activities should be descouraged because being overly dedicated to sports is a manifestation of a capitalist mindset epitomized in the slogans of of "bellum omnia contra omnes", "homo homini lupus" and "citius, altius, fortius" which represent ideas of competition and progressivism- which should be replaced with the ideas of solidarity and sustainability.


I demand answers to all those questions, by the way.
You might want to consider asking instead of demanding, and in general behaving more like a human being (a rational being) rather than acting unmannerly, if you want to be taken serously by rational people.

[Zealot]

Abolish conservatives while we're at it.

Fabian, your utopian vision of the world and personal life sounds so boring that I just feel sorry for you. However, I would love to live there because I'd become a rich man selling weed and alcohol on the black market. It's been proven time and again that prohibiting something just creates bigger problems and a black market where there is demand (and there will always be a demand for alcohol, drugs and....cream).

[fabian]

Abolish conservatives while we're at it.
Ironically, the person on your avatar was somewhat a conservative (anti-abortion and anti-gay).


your utopian vision of the world and personal life sounds so boring that I just feel sorry for you.
I could say that I feel sory that you have a consumerist mindset and have accepted the discourse of the capitalist entertainment industry, but I won't, I don't practice feeling any negative emotions. Cheers :D


It's been proven time and again that prohibiting something just creates bigger problems and a black market where there is demand
Prohibition that should follow the mental revolution among the population, not the other way round, that's why the probihibition of alcohol in America failed but works in Iran- the key is to have the majority of people supporting the prohibition before it is made, which is a fairly democratic principle.


(and there will always be a demand for alcohol, drugs and....cream).
So defeatist of you.

[Zealot]

Ironically, the person on your avatar was somewhat a conservative (anti-abortion and anti-gay).

He was a product of his time and material conditions.


I could say that I feel sory that you have a consumerist mindset and have accepted the discourse of the capitalist entertainment industry, but I won't, I don't practice feeling any negative emotions. Cheers :D

Not really. I've never gambled and I only occasionally smoke a joint or drink alcohol. Only a religious fundamentalist would call that consumerism, which I'm guessing you are. But my cream... don't you dare touch my cream.


Prohibition that should follow the mental revolution among the population, not the other way round, that's why the probihibition of alcohol in America failed but works in Iran- the key is to have the majority of people supporting the prohibition before it is made, which is a fairly democratic principle.

I'm not sure about Iran but I know for a fact that prohibition of alcohol has failed in every Muslim country I've visited. The United Arab Emirates have so-called "holes in the wall" for people to buy alcohol, one of which was aptly situated right next to a court house in one of the most conservative emirates. And yes, I saw plenty of Arabs and Muslims visit. Prohibition of alcohol was a failure in the United States and it's a failure in Muslim countries.

Getting the "majority of people supporting the prohibition" is a pipe dream. Most people are just going to light up, drink up, eat up and ignore your crazy ass.

[fabian]

Not really. I've never gambled and I only occasionally smoke a joint or drink alcohol. Only a religious fundamentalist would call that consumerism
What I called a consumerist mindset is you calling a society without vices "boring". As if work, learning, socialising, growing intellectually and morally, fighting for a cause, books, music, plays, movies, (video) games, and a ton of other things are not enough to lead a fulfilling life, you need drugs, gambling, drunkeness and other vices. If thinking otherwise makes me a religious fundamentalist, then so be it.


Prohibition of alcohol was a failure in the United States and it's a failure in Muslim countries.
As I said- because there was no prior support.


Getting the "majority of people supporting the prohibition" is a pipe dream. Most people are just going to light up, drink up, eat up and ignore your crazy ass.
Exactly the (consumerist) mentality that made and keeps humans in the state of being a virus and a tumor of the Earth, and precisely the reason why we'll all perish (and destroy most of higher animals in the process) if there is not a mental revolution were people will "subordinate their physical desires and appetites to the intellectual and spiritual side of their nature" as Beatrice Webb put it nicely, and start living lives centered around sustainability, solidarity, virtue, and Epicurean or Stoic (instead of animalistic) happiness.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I could be called conservative, and I do call myself that as a practicality, although I am much "worse" :D

My views include: criminalization of all drugs (including marihuana), cigarettes and tobacco smoking (and after that tobacco in general), drunkeness (and after that alcoholic drinks in general), fast food, junk food, consumption of meat and of non-organic foods. It is, IMO, nonsensical for a society to have generally available health care and in the same time tolerate practices that are unhealthy, being that 90% and more of the unhealthy conditions that man falls under are avoidable by healthy living.

As far as gambling is concerned, criminalize that too, and pay close attention on signs of other addictive behaviour among people connected to sexuality, or remnants of consumerism or remnants or various types of the entertainment industry.

That is called regulating morality, and that is reactionary.

[roy]

seriously hoping fabian is a troll. how can anyone believe that?

[dodger]

That is called regulating morality, and that is reactionary.

that's why even in humble dwellings we put up lace curtains. Which can be frustrating for someone like me. Love to know what makes people tick. who or what they are, I just rein myself in. Mind my own business, or at least try to.

[fabian]

That is called regulating morality, and that is reactionary.
If physical and mental health are a part of morality, then OK, I do think that everyone should regulate their own morality, and that society as a whole should do the same thing.


seriously hoping fabian is a troll. how can anyone believe that?
Yes, not much people have heard of the rationalist, healthy living, ascetical socialists like Pierrepont Greaves, Leonard Nelson, Henry Salt, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, maybe only of Bernard Shaw- all of whom were vegetarian teetotalers who saw their avoidance of vice in personal life as a part of the struggle for a better world.

[ВАЛТЕР]

If physical and mental health are a part of morality, then OK, I do think that everyone should regulate their own morality, and that society as a whole should do the same thing.


You can't ban things because you don't like them or think they are unhealthy. Unhealthy things should be discouraged, but to outright ban everything unhealthy is ridiculous.

You obviously believe your morals are superior and are willing to implement methods in which suppress the beliefs of others. You are going to ban alcohol? Why? Let people drink if they want to. Why should it bother you if I drink? Nobody is making you drink, so you shouldn't care. Morals are a very subjective thing. Everybody holds different opinions on what is "right" and "wrong" but you are the only one willing to punish others for believing differently. These kind of beliefs belong in a church or mosque being ranted on by a crazy priest, not from the mouth of a socialist.

You also want to ban competitive sports too? You are ridiculous. Is it possible people enjoy playing football, some enjoy wrestling, some enjoy tennis? I personally box competitively. Nobody makes me box, I like doing it. I like getting in the ring and testing my strength and skills against another person. Why would I train if I didn't get to compete? I box others who come into the sport knowing full well what the expectations are. It is fun for me, as well as them. Maybe you might not like it, but you are not the one boxing and no one forces you watch.


You don't like drinking? Don't drink, nobody is making you. You don't like sports? Don't play or watch them. However, do not oppress people because of something you don't like to do.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Prohibition that should follow the mental revolution among the population, not the other way round, that's why the probihibition of alcohol in America failed but works in Iran- the key is to have the majority of people supporting the prohibition before it is made, which is a fairly democratic principle.


It doesn't work in Iran. Thousand upon thousands of liters are smuggled into the country. As well as many people make their own alcohol. It is a complete failure in Iran, as it is, has been, and always will be everywhere else.

[Ocean Seal]

Fabian's society sounds really boring. What is a communist without vodka? A class traitor of course.

[fabian]

You can't ban things because you don't like them
I did not say that.


or think they are unhealthy
I don't think they are unhealthy, I know.
Health is not a matter of opinion. You can think that tobacco, alcohol, drugs and junk food are healthy all you want, that will not change the fact that they are not.


It doesn't work in Iran. Thousand upon thousands of liters are smuggled into the country. As well as many people make their own alcohol. It is a complete failure in Iran, as it is, has been, and always will be everywhere else.
A close fried of mine travels to Iran regularly and has informed me otherwise. I'll take his word over yours.


Unhealthy things should be discouraged, but to outright ban everything unhealthy is ridiculous.
Why then should they be discouraged? If everyone should be free to harm himself and others as long as it's "volutary" (like anyone in their right mind would want to be harmed, but lets say it can be voluntary) then why should we be against capitalism?


You obviously believe your morals are superior and are willing to implement methods in which suppress the beliefs of others.

You are going to ban alcohol?

You also want to ban competitive sports too? You are ridiculous. Is it possible people enjoy playing football, some enjoy wrestling, some enjoy tennis? I personally box competitively. Nobody makes me box
Do you want to ban capitalism? Patriarchy? Discrimination? Why? Nobody's making us workers work for the capitalists by the tip of the sword. Why shouldn't people be sexist ih they like it? Why shouldn't they be a racist if he likes it? Or are you going to tell me that there are some ideas that you think are inferior to yours and that there are some ideas you think are wrong as oppossed to yours? Is that ridiculous or just means you stand for something?


What is a communist without vodka?
http://englishrussia.com/2010/08/16/anti-alcohol-soviet-posters/
:D

[ВАЛТЕР]

I did not say that.


I don't think they are unhealthy, I know.
Health is not a matter of opinion. You can think that tobacco, alcohol, drugs and junk food are healthy all you want, that will not change the fact that they are not.

Everyone knows it is unhealthy. Some people still do it. Let them do it, they aren't harming you.


A close fried of mine travels to Iran regularly and has informed me otherwise. I'll take his word over yours.

I've read reports and seen documentaries which prove otherwise. You can't get it in a cafe, but you can get it.



Why then should they be discouraged? If everyone should be free to harm himself and others as long as it's "volutary" (like anyone in their right mind would want to be harmed, but lets say it can be voluntary) then why should we be against capitalism?


They should be discouraged by showi9ngf the dangers of them and in this way prevent people from drinking excessively, smoking, etc.


Do you want to ban capitalism? Patriarchy? Discrimination? Why? Nobody's making us workers work for the capitalists by the tip of the sword.

Yes, it is called wage slavery. You aren't forced at gunpoint but you are forced by material conditions, because if you don't work. You starve.


Why shouldn't people be sexist ih they like it? Why shouldn't they be a racist if he likes it? Or are you going to tell me that there are some ideas that you think are inferior to yours and that there are some ideas you think are wrong as oppossed to yours? Is that ridiculous or just means you stand for something?

Sexism and racism should be prevented because they result in hateful acts and violence against others for no reason other than race or sex. Racism and sexism cause harm to peopole other than yourself. If you want to go and drink excessively, then do it. I don't care. I will discourage you and tell you that it is a bad idea, however I'm not going to stop you. It is your body, do with it what you like.

If somebody wants to drink, you should encourage them to drink responsibly. Not outlaw drinking all together.

If I want to go get drunk, I will do it. If I want to go box another person who is willing, I will do it. Nobody is going to stop me.



I'm glad that very few people think like you because your positions are psychotic.

[Ocean Seal]

http://englishrussia.com/2010/08/16/anti-alcohol-soviet-posters/
:D
Revisionism, obviously. Marx himself was a drunken motherfucker. How do you think he wrote the Capital?

[dodger]

Cock Fighting....it's the only time I see my representative, apart from elections. We have to leave guns knives and knuckledusters at the door. All alcohol served in plastic. It's the place where things get sorted. Having enjoyed beginners luck I am scrutinized to see where I place my bets. The fools. I get the glad eye from young ladies who I can only describe as brazen hussey's. I cannot show myself too disinterested or they send their brothers over. Some of whom are prettier than any of the girls who have ever dated me. There's an illuminated crucifix long worn by rubbing of betting tickets.

The ex vice-governor spots me before I spot him. He likes to show off his command of English. and he tells his companions and the world at large I am a man of considerable wealth and influence. Related to David Beckham. He tells me about his campaign to stamp out porn in the internet cafe, school boys have been reported ,by the clergy's spies. Not a hint of shame or aware of any paradox. It would be pointless me saying You own 70% of the brothels here. He would not fathom any connection.

Losing track of which chicken has ended uo at KFC I give the girls a handful of betting slips and make tracks home. Judging by the shreiks a few came up. Oh well made somebody happy. Someone threw a grenade in after I left. Might be due for a change of ownership. Perhaps just overdue on protection.. They had sensibly waited for me to leave. It would have been a scandal for an influential Englishman to be caught up in such an incident.

[Princess Luna]

A close fried of mine travels to Iran regularly and has informed me otherwise. I'll take his word over yours.
Did you know the place I live is 100% drug free? Yep, I have lived here 5 years and I have never seen any drugs, so clearly drug prohibition is working. But seriously, it's called "underground" for a reason, and since your friend just travels to Iran and doesn't live there he probably doesn't have the right connections.

[teflon_john]

man i bet fabian is a real blast to hang out with.

[dodger]

they don't say Iran is "smack-bang next door to Afghanistan for no reason at all. The Shah's sister a good friend to uk and US controlled the trade. Now who knows?

[roy]

Yes, not much people have heard of the rationalist, healthy living, ascetical socialists like Pierrepont Greaves, Leonard Nelson, Henry Salt, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, maybe only of Bernard Shaw- all of whom were vegetarian teetotalers who saw their avoidance of vice in personal life as a part of the struggle for a better world.

Some people wrote some stuff? Compelling argument for limiting my personal freedom. :rolleyes: To hell with your nightmare dystopian dreamworld that has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with extreme conservatism. Actually, the assertion you made in your original post is correct: you are much worse than a run-of-the-mill conservative.

EDIT: Lol yeah, Iran is just the model we should be following. Great points to justify your own excessive authoritarianism (yeah I said the a-word sorry), man. Great points.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

And honestly I'm not exactly sure why some conservatives are opposed to gambling. I know that there are some libertarian conservatives who support lifting restrictions on gambling, esp. internet gambling

That's virtually the only thing I can agree with libertards on is the legalization of drugs, gambling and happy meals (with toy).

[#FF0000]

hoo boy i wonder what fabian will think when he realizes that full legalization of drugs has lead to rates of drug use dropping like a stone.

[roy]

So, Fabian, I heard you like videogames. Welp, some people become obsessed with videogames and the enjoyment thereof is thusly an expression of the consumerist mindset, so I'mma ban 'em. Also, plays. I'm banning them too. Thanks.

[#FF0000]

i'm kinda wondering why media in general doesn't get tagged with 'consumerist' as well, honestly.

[Kenco Smooth]

Why then should they be discouraged? If everyone should be free to harm himself and others as long as it's "volutary" (like anyone in their right mind would want to be harmed, but lets say it can be voluntary) then why should we be against capitalism?



Thank god we have you, our rational health overlord, to look out for our true, rational interests. Forgive us our consumerism, we're not in our right minds.

[fabian]

Everyone knows it is unhealthy. Some people still do it. Let them do it, they aren't harming you.
Everyone knows capitalism is bad. Some still support it instead rebel against it.


I've read reports and seen documentaries which prove otherwise. You can't get it in a cafe, but you can get it.
A close fried of mine travels to Iran regularly and has informed me otherwise. I'll take his word over yours.


They should be discouraged by showi9ngf the dangers of them and in this way prevent people from drinking excessively, smoking, etc.
Then capitalism should also "discouraged by showing it's dangers".


They should be discouraged by showi9ngf the dangers of them and in this way prevent people from drinking excessively, smoking, etc.
It's volutary as much as living unhealthy. You don't think that people aren't conditioned to unhealthy lives by capitalist propaganda and indoctrination? You think that people make a rational, free-willed, informed choice that they want to be unhealthy and sick?



Sexism and racism should be prevented because they result in hateful acts and violence
And alcohol does not? Just the same as you drink alcohol without being violent you can just the same be a non-violent racist or sexist.


If somebody wants to drink, you should encourage them to drink responsibly. Not outlaw drinking all together.
If somebody wants to be a racist, we shoud encourage them to be a non-violent racist, and not outlaw racism.


I'm glad that very few people think like you because your positions are psychotic.
It's a sad world when virtue and rationalism come to be called psychotic.


Revisionism, obviously. Marx himself was a drunken motherfucker.
Good thing then that Marxist communism isn't the only communism around.


man i bet fabian is a real blast to hang out with.
Well if you're for hanging out with drunkards and junkies, I you wanderd in my crowd, my friends and I would probably chase you away.


Some people wrote some stuff? Compelling argument for limiting my personal freedom. :rolleyes: To hell with your nightmare dystopian dreamworld that has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with extreme conservatism. Actually, the assertion you made in your original post is correct: you are much worse than a run-of-the-mill conservative.

EDIT: Lol yeah, Iran is just the model we should be following. Great points to justify your own excessive authoritarianism (yeah I said the a-word sorry), man. Great points.
So many fallacies (especially strawman) in so little words, I don't even know where to begin.


hoo boy i wonder what fabian will think when he realizes that full legalization of drugs has lead to rates of drug use dropping like a stone.
False.
Drug consumption prevalence in Porutagal (http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/pt) for cannabis- 7.6% in 2001, when decriminalization occured, to 13% in 2007.
Drug consumption prevalence in Netherland (http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/nl) for cannabis- 19.5% in 2001, 28% in 2007.


So, Fabian, I heard you like videogames. Welp, some people become obsessed with videogames and the enjoyment thereof is thusly an expression of the consumerist mindset, so I'mma ban 'em. Also, plays. I'm banning them too. Thanks.
False analogy. The same as was tried by hatzel on page 1. Neither of the mentioned has consequences on physical or mental health by default. If anyone should show sings of addictive behaviour connected to any of the two, society should ofcourse help him out of his addiction.


Thank god we have you, our rational health overlord, to look out for our true, rational interests. Forgive us our consumerism, we're not in our right minds.
If you have any type of rational argument to offer in explanation of why is it OK to be addicted or unhealthy, I will be happy to listen.

[roy]

It's OK to be unhealthy because your body = your choice. Your personal autonomy ends once you impinge on that of others. This isn't a difficult concept. Say you've achieved your 'mental revolution' - What then would be the point of banning everything? Way to divorce yourself from bourgeois society.

It's cute you took the videogame thing seriously, btw. :3

[fabian]

It's OK to be unhealthy because your body = your choice.
Are we really isolated individuals? If I became an alcoholic or a junkie, am I harming only myself or my family, too? My friends? Society? I'd say yes, for the family and friends part at least. And when that behaviour (which is not autonomous anymore, because an addicted person doesn't control his own behaviour) turns violent, there is harm to anyone else who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Also, as I said before, it is nonsensical for a society to organize itself in a way that everyone has available health care and to tolerate unhealthy practices. It contradictory and wasteful, because almost all health complications can be avoided by prevention- healthy living.


It's cute you took the videogame thing seriously, btw.
I take my games seriously. :D

[ВАЛТЕР]

Everyone knows capitalism is bad. Some still support it instead rebel against it.

Not everybody knows capitalism is bad, also many people do not fight against it because they do not understand that there are alternatives.

You can't compare capitalism with alcohol. One is a system the other is a substance.



A close fried of mine travels to Iran regularly and has informed me otherwise. I'll take his word over yours.

And your friend knows exactly nothing about Iran obviously because it is well known that the whole "prohibition" thing is a complete and utter failure.


Then capitalism should also "discouraged by showing it's dangers".

It should be discouraged, and it should be brought down by force. However, capitalism and alcohol aren't comparable things. It is stupid to compare the two.



It's volutary as much as living unhealthy. You don't think that people aren't conditioned to unhealthy lives by capitalist propaganda and indoctrination? You think that people make a rational, free-willed, informed choice that they want to be unhealthy and sick?

People aren't conditioned by capitalism to live unhealthy lives. People have been getting wasted before capitalism even existed as an economic system. The only thing capitalism does is play on these wants by encouraging the people to use "their" products.




And alcohol does not? Just the same as you drink alcohol without being violent you can just the same be a non-violent racist or sexist.

Racism and Sexism result in discrimination against other people. Alcohol does not. Alcohol at worst makes someone act irrationally for a time being which can be dealt with.



If somebody wants to be a racist, we shoud encourage them to be a non-violent racist, and not outlaw racism.

You can't "outlaw" racism because that is a mental mindset. You can't make someone stop thinking racist. However, you can ostracize racists, you can denounce their beliefs, you can encourage integration in society. However you can't "outlaw" a belief. As much as I would love to outlaw racism, you simply can't do it. Racists aren't obvious, and many people don't even realize their actions are racist.


It's a sad world when virtue and rationalism come to be called psychotic.

Your "virtue" and "rationalism" is hilarious.





Well if you're for hanging out with drunkards and junkies, I you wanderd in my crowd, my friends and I would probably chase you away.

What a bunch of badasses. :laugh:


All in all your entire post can be responded to with "cool story bro." :thumbup1:

[roy]

Are we really isolated individuals? If I became an alcoholic or a junkie, am I harming only myself or my family, too? My friends? Society? I'd say yes, for the family and friends part at least. And when that behaviour (which is not autonomous anymore, because an addicted person doesn't control his own behaviour) turns violent, there is harm to anyone else who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Also, as I said before, it is nonsensical for a society to organize itself in a way that everyone has available health care and to tolerate unhealthy practices. It contradictory and wasteful, because almost all health complications can be avoided by prevention- healthy living.


I take my games seriously. :D

geez man i guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. personally i feel that once you get violent or w/e that's when you surrender your personal autonomy. in communism there'd be massive decrease in the endemic deliquency of capitalism and we'd be able to look after people who smoke too much no worries. if not i don't think there's any point. i just don't want to live in a world where if i'm not a teetotaller, vegan, cyclist who doesn't play sport too much or drink, take any sort of recreational drugs etc. i'll get sent to prison. i think most people probably feel similarly.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I don't see this discussion going anywhere. It doesn't bother me that you don't drink or do whatever. I personally have never smoked, and only drink on rare occasions. I have been an athlete my entire life and have no interests in drugs and excessive drinking. However, I am not trying to force my beliefs on anyone else. As you are trying to do.

In fact I have already ran, done my strength exercises this morning, and am going to the club for my regular training at 4. I would love for everybody to be able to do the same and be interested in sports and health, but they aren't. I don't care that they aren't though. Everyone likes different things obviously, however you are the only one trying to force your morals on others.

Tell people that drinking is bad, tell them that smoking is bad, however don't outlaw it entirely.

In fact I would love for smoking to be banned, because I am allergic to cigarette smoke. However, I am not going to force the issue on others.

[fabian]

personally i feel that once you get violent or w/e that's when you surrender your personal autonomy
And how is someone e.g. addicted to heroin supposed to control himself not to commit violence when experiencing abstinence crysis (/withdrawal) and in need of money to buy a fix?


i just don't want to live in a world where if i'm not a teetotaller, vegan, cyclist who doesn't play sport too much or drink, take any sort of recreational drugs etc. i'll get sent to prison.
My idea is that you'd be sentenced to community service and attending classes about why your action were bad and about practices that can help you break bad habits and make good ones. Prisons (converted to something like dungeons, because modern prisons are either schools for majoring in criminality or like hotels) should be for violent offenders only.


i think most people probably feel similarly.
Irrelevant. That's a fallacy called argumentum ad populum.


However, I am not trying to force my beliefs on anyone else.
As I pointed out, you are. Capitalism, racism and sexism are not inherently violent, and following the logic that everything's OK until it's gets violent, these should not be oppossed either, just "discouraged".

[roy]

And how is someone e.g. addicted to heroin supposed to control himself not to commit violence when experiencing abstinence crysis (/withdrawal) and in need of money to buy a fix?


My idea is that you'd be sentenced to community service and attending classes about why your action were bad and about practices that can help you break bad habits and make good ones. Prisons (converted to something like dungeons, because modern prisons are either schools for majoring in criminality or like hotels) should be for violent offenders only.


Irrelevant. That's a fallacy called argumentum ad populum.


yeah i know what argumentum ad populum is i don't need a lesson. i think it's pretty relevant that your ultra-puritanism will never gain popular appeal (phew). re-education camps and dungeons? you're slowly winning me over. sorry, i just don't think what you're talking about has any basis in reality or socialism.

[teflon_john]

And how is someone e.g. addicted to heroin supposed to control himself not to commit violence when experiencing abstinence crysis (/withdrawal) and in need of money to buy a fix?


that is not what happens to heroin addicts going through withdrawal. they simply writhe in agony, get constipated, and wish they were dead.

[hatzel]

And your friend knows exactly nothing about Iran obviously because it is well known that the whole "prohibition" thing is a complete and utter failure.

I remember somebody posted up a link a while ago to a documentary about Jews in Iran. Or maybe I'm thinking about another documentary, not the one that was put up here. Anyway, in that they went into a shop and the Jewish shopkeeper almost instantly pulled out a bottle of vodka for a l'chaim. If I remember rightly, he said in the video that we was allowed to have it because he wasn't Muslim. But c'mon, let's be reasonable here...what are the chances of him not sharing that with anybody? I'm sure there are other (slightly shadier) ways to get stuff, but if it's true that non-Muslims are allowed to have alcohol legally, then clearly there's a gaping hole in this so-called 'prohibition' just begging to be exploited.

But yeah, I admit I'm not exactly the poster boy of the sobriety movement, though I do tend to avoid the sauce in all but exceptional circumstances. Or, comparing my consumption habits with those around me, I definitely feel I belong in the category of 'light consumer.' Despite that, I don't think personal lifestyle choices are a remotely solid basis from which to construct a broader legal framework, and if somebody were to try to ban wine I would - at the very least - poke them repeatedly in the belly with a broom, as I imagine that would get quite annoying for them before long...

[Kenco Smooth]

If you have any type of rational argument to offer in explanation of why is it OK to be addicted or unhealthy, I will be happy to listen.

Nope. You're the one who wants to force your idea of a 'rational' lifestyle on others. The burden is on you to justify that kind of authoritarianism. I ain't got to justify shit by saying let people do what they want with their bodies and time.

[fabian]

that is not what happens to heroin addicts going through withdrawal. they simply writhe in agony, get constipated, and wish they were dead.
I'm not really proficient in english, so I don't know is abstinention crysis (as we call it) is the same as withdrawal, but I know people who have gone some short time without drugs (one of the heroin) and have beaten old people or children on the street to take their money/ cellphones so they can buy drugs. Ofcourse, that persons got what was coming to them soon after.


Despite that, I don't think personal lifestyle choices are a remotely solid basis from which to construct a broader legal framework
Try rational argumentation connected to the public health care insted of personal lifestyle choices.


You're the one who wants to force your idea of a 'rational' lifestyle on others. The burden is on you to justify that kind of authoritarianism. I ain't got to justify shit by saying let people do what they want with their bodies and time.
That's like saying that liberators want to "enforce freedom" on people. Rationalism = freedom because irrational beings have limited control over their actions. As Rousseau said- Order subsists on freedom, and freedom subsists on virtue. If you're an addict or a person run by vices and unhealthy habits, that shows that you are not in control in your own actions, and by definition the right to liberty belongs only to rational being (excluding children, demented elderly, crazy people and in general people who are not autonomous, cannot take care of themself, or will commit crimes to have their addictions satisfied). If you don't have the will-power to escape such evils, society should help you, which will be good for you, and in turn keep society safe from such socially degenerate behaviours.

[JustMovement]

[email protected] unable to distinguish between voluntarily and knowingly harming yourself, and doing harm to others.

1) other people are a lot less likely to know what is "good" for (and consequently dictating what they can and cannot do) the individual than the individual herself. Society may deem that an activity is harmful, but since when is the majority right? People have though that vaccines are harmful, or self-expression, or responsible sexual activity are harmful. It is better to have individuals freely experimenting. Sure they might harm themselves, but they also might find things that are in fact truly good, and remove prejudices from society

2) my very conception of what good entails might be different from the majority. Say that I want to live fast & die young, provided that I do not harm others, why should society dictate a particular conception of good? To favour the artistotelian or stoic conception of good is just as arbitrary as to mandate a dionysan/nietzschean conception.

3) Freedom is a good unto itself. Banning smoking might do good by extending the life expectancy, making people healthier and curbing addiction, but it would also make society less free, and people value freedom.

4) autonomy. This is the moral and ethical argument that people have the right to live their life the way they see fit, and consequently to make mistakes. Perhaps you could make people, in a sense, "more free" (in the Rousseauean sense) by making it impossible for them to engage in irresponsible or dangerous activities. In doing so though you violate the control that they have over their own lives. You limit the scope that people have to create themselves and be responsible for their own existence, their values, and who they are as individuals, which is the highest and most noble activity you can engage in.

[Princess Luna]

If you have any type of rational argument to offer in explanation of why is it OK to be addicted or unhealthy, I will be happy to listen.
With regards to being unhealthy, I have come to the conclusion that it is better to live for 50 years then exist for 90. In other words I would rather gorge on food and drink till my liver explodes and then I die at 50 having enjoyed my life, then exercise everyday and only eat healthy foods and live to 90 having wasted a good portion of those 40 extra years trying to achieve that goal and being a throughly boring person in the process

[fabian]

voluntarily and knowingly harming yourself
To do something volutarily pressuposes deliberation, and deliberation means that one is able to think clearly. People who self-harm have a personality disorder and are pshycologically ill. It is a contradition to say that someone can volutarily harm himself.


other people are a lot less likely to know what is "good" for (and consequently dictating what they can and cannot do) the individual than the individual herself.
If a junkie thinks heroin is good, than it's good. Idiotic.


Society may deem that an activity is harmful, but since when is the majority right? People have though that vaccines are harmful, or self-expression, or responsible sexual activity are harmful. It is better to have individuals freely experimenting. Sure they might harm themselves, but they also might find things that are in fact truly good, and remove prejudices from society
It is valid argumentation that marks something as correct, proper or good, not popularity. If I were to value something as good by the standards of support then I wouldn't be in the minority now, would I?


Say that I want to live fast & die young, provided that I do not harm others, why should society dictate a particular conception of good?
Being that in that case you don't consider that harming yourself harms society, that would mean that you consider yourself isolated and not a part of society, and in that case, you shouldn't live in a society. It would be perfectly justifiable for any type of social group (family, a circle a friends, or a nation) to expel such an asocial person from it's midst.


To favour the artistotelian or stoic conception of good is just as arbitrary as to mandate a dionysan/nietzschean conception.
No, it is not, because the aristotelian, stoic (, platonic and the epicurean) one's are argumented.


Freedom is a good unto itself.
My point exactly. An addict is not a free person.


Banning smoking might do good by extending the life expectancy, making people healthier and curbing addiction, but it would also make society less free, and people value freedom.
Surrendering freedom is not freedom. There should not (and logically cannot be) such a thing as a voluntary slavery. Likewise, there is no such thing as a "voluntary drug addict".


Perhaps you could make people, in a sense, "more free" (in the Rousseauean sense) by making it impossible for them to engage in irresponsible or dangerous activities. In doing so though you violate the control that they have over their own lives.
It is the people themselves that must liberate themselft from mental habits, no one can do that instead of them. But when someone lack desire for life, health and freedom of action (which I think are good in themselves and/ or one's willpower is underdeveloped, those close to them (family, friends, society) can help them, and should.


In doing so though you violate the control that they have over their own lives.
An addict does not have control over his life, he is controled by his addiction.


With regards to being unhealthy, I have come to the conclusion that it is better to live for 50 years then exist for 90.
Exactly the mentality that is the reason why the human race became and continues to be a virus and a tumor of the planet, and exactly why we're all going to perish (and destroy almost all of the higher animal species and a lot plant ones in the process), because the most important thing in people's lives is to roll in their nice and cosy mud like pigs without a thoght about doing something good for themselves, others or the future.


and then I die at 50 having enjoyed my life
If you can enjoy life with heart and cardiovascular diseases like hypertension with all it's symptoms, illnesses like dyspnea and connected to it the proportional inability to engage in recreation and sexual realtions, osteoarthritis, back pain, urinary incontinence, cancer, migrane, stroke, dementia any other effects of unhealthy living, then it's OK.

[Kenco Smooth]

That's like saying that liberators want to "enforce freedom" on people. Rationalism = freedom because irrational beings have limited control over their actions. As Rousseau said- Order subsists on freedom, and freedom subsists on virtue. If you're an addict or a person run by vices and unhealthy habits, that shows that you are not in control in your own actions, and by definition the right to liberty belongs only to rational being (excluding children, demented elderly, crazy people and in general people who are not autonomous, cannot take care of themself, or will commit crimes to have their addictions satisfied). If you don't have the will-power to escape such evils, society should help you, which will be good for you, and in turn keep society safe from such socially degenerate behaviours.

Take that positive freedom crap and shove it where the sun don't shine. There is no margin against which to measure the rationality of human life, or should the state force people to immediately cease making inductions in day to day life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction#David_Hume)? If not why not? We are unable to logically prove induction a valid principle so surely adherence to it is irrational, removing the rights of people to be inductionists? Or are the rules of strict logic just a bit too stringent for day to day life? Then what decides the demarcation between irrational and imprisoning and rational and liberating? You?

However fundamental issues aside it is still a ridiculous idea. How can anyone in their right mind possibly say that a group in society should be able to arbitrarily decide on what is best for society, after the multitude of abuses of such power throughout the last 2 centuries if not more? Surely you're not so naive to believe that giving a social body the absolute ability to interfere in every aspect of an individuals life is not going to degrade into tyranny?

[JustMovement]

It seems to me like you are conflating the descriptive (what is) and the normative (what ought to be). Reason is a method, but it does not pressupose any end.

Or to quote Hume:
`Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.

This leads you to conflate your particular end with that of everyone else. This is the logic of the tyrant. Different people might have different ends.

[fabian]

Take that positive freedom crap and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Up your mama's a**?


How can anyone in their right mind possibly say that a group in society should be able to arbitrarily decide on what is best for society
Strawman. Not arbitrarily, but rationally.


Surely you're not so naive to believe that giving a social body the absolute ability to interfere in every aspect of an individuals life is not going to degrade into tyranny?
Absolute ability to interfere in every aspect of an individuals life? Strawman squared.


It seems to me like you are conflating the descriptive (what is) and the normative (what ought to be)
Seems like you've never heard of ethics. Social contract and general will, utilitarianism, virtue ethics and justice, non-aggression axiom, justice as fairness.


This leads you to conflate your particular end with that of everyone else.
Why not capitalism? Sexism? Slavery? Violence? On what value argumnt do you base your view on? If you have any.

[JustMovement]

I hope you do not believe all of those things at once, because they are in contradiction.

However I realise why this dialogue is not going anywhere, whilst I have given reasons for being against paternalism, to recap:
1) indiv. is a better judge of what is good for her; 2) good can be defined in various ways; 3) freedom is a good; 4) autonomy, right to self-expression and self-responsibility.
you have yet to give reasons why you are FOR paternalism.

So I'm going to ask you a couple questions:

Do you think that in all cases what is morally bad (what one ought not to do) is the same as what is harmful, narrowly construed as harmful to the body and mind?

If yes, what do you say to two consenting adults practicing S&M?

What about someone with a terminal illness who requests euthenasia?

Is an artist justified in not taking care of his well being (not sleeping, or eating enough) to create his masterpiece?

What about an artist taking LSD and creating it?

Is restricting someone's freedom harming them?

What ethical system do you adhere to? How do you explicitly relate it to your stance for restricting people from doing things that could be considered harmful to themselves?

[#FF0000]

False.
Drug consumption prevalence in Porutagal (http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/pt) for cannabis- 7.6% in 2001, when decriminalization occured, to 13% in 2007

Cannabis consumption went up -- use of harder drugs dropped. The spread of certain diseases spread via dirty needles was curtailed as well.

[#FF0000]

Up your mama's a**?

it is always entertaining to see uptight weirdos curse, even in text.

[Grenzer]

Seems like you've never heard of ethics. Social contract and general will, utilitarianism, virtue ethics and justice, non-aggression axiom, justice as fairness.

That's all idealist nonsense though. Seriously, fuck virtue and justice. That shit is completely subjective; and more often than not, tailored by the ruling class to reinforce what's good for them, not what's good for the ordinary working people.



Why not capitalism? Sexism? Slavery? Violence? On what value argumnt do you base your view on? If you have any.

Why not capitalism? Because it's a fucking terrible system. It's completely illogical that such a small fraction of humanity should have a virtual monopoly on all the levers of power and wealth. Bullshit about them "earning" it is completely irrelevant.

The contradictions inherent within capitalism show that it's on its way to destroying itself, and fucking over as many people as possible in the meantime. Communism is a movement which seeks to destroy your world, the world of childish sentimentality and liberalism. In the end, the working class will accept communist because it's in their interests to do so because ultimately material interests are what compel people, not notions of "freedom", "virtue" and "justice".

Your main problem is that you're a liberal who sees the world in terms of ideas and emotion, instead of material reality.

[Ostrinski]

Seems like you've never heard of ethics. Social contract and general will, utilitarianism, virtue ethics and justice, non-aggression axiom, justice as fairness.Obvious liberal is obvious, let's get a restriction.

[fabian]

1) indiv. is a better judge of what is good for her;
Which is incorrect. An addict thinking that drugs are good doesn't make drugs good.


you have yet to give reasons why you are FOR paternalism.
I am not for paternalism. Paternalism means limiting someone's actions against his will. An addict's actions are limited against his will by addiction, and it is my idea that he should be liberated from that.


Do you think that in all cases what is morally bad (what one ought not to do) is the same as what is harmful, narrowly construed as harmful to the body and mind?
Good is to be alive, healthy and (most importantly) to have freedom of thought and action.


If yes, what do you say to two consenting adults practicing S&M?
If real injuries are involved, those are mentally ill people.


What about someone with a terminal illness who requests euthenasia?
Palliative treatment until death.


Is an artist justified in not taking care of his well being (not sleeping, or eating enough) to create his masterpiece?
No, but should not be stopped. But also, if he doesn't work to support himself, society should shun him and let him die.


What about an artist taking LSD and creating it?
Junkie.


Is restricting someone's freedom harming them?
Yes.


What ethical system do you adhere to?
Volutarism, Non-aggression axiom, Eudaimonism, Virtue ethics.


How do you explicitly relate it to your stance for restricting people
I am not for restricting people, I am for liberating them.


from doing things that could be considered harmful to themselves?
Everyone who harms himself also harms society that he is a part of.


Cannabis consumption went up -- use of harder drugs dropped.
False. Cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, amphetamines and LSD prevalence doubled. In 2001 it was almost 1%, in 2007 almost 2%.


The spread of certain diseases spread via dirty needles was curtailed as well.
And yet statics show a rise in drug-related deaths. E.g in Netherland (http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/nl#drd)- 103–104 cases in 2002–03 (), 139 in 2009.


it is always entertaining to see uptight weirdos curse, even in text.
Do not confuse me with some limp moralizing christian. People cursing here in conversation with me would think thice about doing the same if this were face to face, being that I look like a hooligan bodybuilder (although I'm neither professionally).


completely subjective
Being healthy, addiction-free and vice-free are not subjective.


Your main problem is that you're a liberal who sees the world in terms of ideas and emotion, instead of material reality.
Clasiccal liberal (/enlightenment adherent, Rousseauist) who discards emotion and accepts only valid arguments.

[#FF0000]

I am not for paternalism. Paternalism means limiting someone's actions against his will. An addict's actions are limited against his will by addiction, and it is my idea that he should be liberated from that.

Not all people who take drugs are necessarily addicts. Many drugs are not necessarily addictive.


If real injuries are involved, those are mentally ill people.


Mental health experts would disagree with you. And what does that mean anyway? People who participate in S&M need some kind of re-education and rehabilitation?


False. Cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, amphetamines and LSD prevalence doubled. In 2001 it was almost 1%, in 2007 almost 2%.

And according to the British Journal of Criminology, this may be explained by the newfound candor in interviewees who are less likely to lie about their drug use, now that there's no real reason to hide it anymore.

But even so I'd say that this is irrelevant since this measure also saw a massive increase in people going in for addiction treatment and a precipitous drop in HIV rates among drug users.


And yet statics show a rise in drug-related deaths. E.g in Netherland (http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/nl#drd)- 103–104 cases in 2002–03 (), 139 in 2009.

Which is still among the lowest in the EU. The rate of drug use in the Netherlands is about on par with its neighbors, yet they have fewer people becoming problem drug users and a huge amount of people applying for treatment to get rid of their addictions in the first place -- certainly more than are doing so in countries where drugs are mostly illegal, where addicts are forced to hide out of fear of legal consequences for their disease.


Being healthy, addiction-free and vice-free are not subjective.

Sure is. What constitutes a 'vice' is absolutely subjective. So is 'healthy', to a point.

[Kotze]

Are we really isolated individuals? If I became an alcoholic or a junkie, am I harming only myself or my family, too? My friends? Society? (...) it is nonsensical for a society to organize itself in a way that everyone has available health care and to tolerate unhealthy practices.Haven't seen this seriously addressed in this thread, everybody seems to be preoccupied with bashing fabian for having an unusually restrictive stance. Let's put the question whether Ronald McDonald is a terrorist aside for a moment. The risks of drunk driving are not limited to drunk people. I would not say to a chain smoker with lung cancer that health problems are entirely subjective, and I believe neither would any of you.

What should happen when somebody wants treatment for a health problem and we as well as this person are pretty sure about it being caused by drug use and how much treatment costs? There are different ways society could handle that:

a) People are free to use all kinds of drugs and individuals pay for their individual drug-caused health probs and detox.
b) People are free to use all kinds of drugs and the public pays for treating any drug-caused health prob and detox.
c) Drug usage is restricted...
d) Drug usage is taxed to cover treatment costs (compulsory insurance basically, could be done with progressive usage tax (http://www.revleft.com/vb/practicalities-legalising-drugs-t167882/index.html?p=2369556#post2369556)).

These approaches can be mixed of course.

[Revolution starts with U]

As someone who volunteers in the drug counseling sector, I can tell you this. You will never help a person with an addiction by just dismissing them as "junkies."

You want to stop them from using with force? Good job doing for them what they should do for themselves, protecting them from their mistakes, and making them lose respect for you, but more importanty, for themselves. In short, thanks for making their addiciton worse, douche.

[NewLeft]

As someone who volunteers in the drug counseling sector, I can tell you this. You will never help a person with an addiction by just dismissing them as "junkies."
That's pretty amazing, do you work with the patients? I briefly worked at planned parenthood, but never dealt with people. :(

[Revolution starts with U]

Which is incorrect. An addict thinking that drugs are good doesn't make drugs good.

Good is subjective in its own right. If an addict thinks drugs are good, than drugs are good to him.



I am not for paternalism. Paternalism means limiting someone's actions against his will. An addict's actions are limited against his will by addiction, and it is my idea that he should be liberated from that.

Nice doublethink. Are you even aware of the ridiculousness of this statement? It's his or her will, not yours.



Good is to be alive, healthy and (most importantly) to have freedom of thought and action.

According to you. Good to me is a lack of exploitation and poverty. Good to right wingers is a lack of government helping people.



If real injuries are involved, those are mentally ill people.

Patronizing little shit. Mind your own backyard.



Junkie.

Enabler.



Volutarism, Non-aggression axiom, Eudaimonism, Virtue ethics.

Yes, non-aggressive voluntarism... unless of course they disagree with them, than you can beat them with sticks to your heart's content. Your doublethink is astounding friend.



I am not for restricting people, I am for liberating them.

And it shows its face again...




Do not confuse me with some limp moralizing christian. People cursing here in conversation with me would think thice about doing the same if this were face to face, being that I look like a hooligan bodybuilder (although I'm neither professionally).

The rest of these turds might now, I don't know. But I would gladly do that, and have to bigger fools than yourself.



Being healthy, addiction-free and vice-free are not subjective.

Vices are, the other two aren't. But the point is that whether or not those are actually good things IS subjective.

[Revolution starts with U]

That's pretty amazing, do you work with the patients? I briefly worked at planned parenthood, but never dealt with people. :(

Not yet, I'm working on that. You actually have to have a lot of experience and time to be a drug counsellor. I help lead a 12 step meeting and am on the Opiate Task Force and the Alliance for Substance Abuse Prevention (ASAP) in my county.

[Kotze]

An addict's actions are limited against his will by addiction, and it is my idea that he should be liberated from that.
Are you even aware of the ridiculousness of this statement?Well, there are people who refer to themselves as wanting to quit without being able to, no? Though I've never heard of LSD junkies before this thread.

[Revolution starts with U]

That's not what I'm denying, but the idea that you can force liberation on people.

[fabian]

Not all people who take drugs are necessarily addicts. Many drugs are not necessarily addictive.
Drugs are addictive, and are not the only addictive things. Gambling is addictive. Junk food, too.


Mental health experts would disagree with you.
Self-harm is defined as a psychological illness even in today's crapy medicine.


And what does that mean anyway? People who participate in S&M need some kind of re-education and rehabilitation?
People who injure themselves or allow others to do so should be treated, yes.


And according to the British Journal of Criminology, this may be explained by the newfound candor in interviewees who are less likely to lie about their drug use, now that there's no real reason to hide it anymore.
They had no reason to lie before, such polls do not result in being arrested because that would defeat the purpose of any poll.


But even so I'd say that this is irrelevant since this measure also saw a massive increase in people going in for addiction treatment and a precipitous drop in HIV rates among drug users.
Not treatment, but enablement.


where addicts are forced to hide out of fear of legal consequences for their disease.
As I said, I think addicts should be treated, not jailed and then let loose when their sentance expired. In that kind of system, they would hide only out of wish to stay junkies, in which case they should be in fear, because no healthy society wants junkies in their midst.


What should happen when somebody wants treatment for a health problem and we as well as this person are pretty sure about it being caused by drug use and how much treatment costs?
I personally wouldn't give a dime to treat someone who wants to do drugs or live unhealthy. Why should anyone living healthy give money for treatment of those who don't take care of their health?


There are different ways society could handle that:

a) People are free to use all kinds of drugs and individuals pay for their individual drug-caused health probs and detox.
b) People are free to use all kinds of drugs and the public pays for treating any drug-caused health prob and detox.
c) Drug usage is restricted...
d) Drug usage is taxed to cover treatment costs (compulsory insurance basically, could be done with progressive usage tax (http://www.revleft.com/vb/practicalities-legalising-drugs-t167882/index.html?p=2369556#post2369556)).
I consider generally available health care a right, so I see C as the only option.


As someone who volunteers in the drug counseling sector, I can tell you this. You will never help a person with an addiction by just dismissing them as "junkies."
Neither I said you should. Help should be not just offered to them, and then if they "change their mind" canceled. Of course they would change their mind, they're addicts.


You want to stop them from using with force? Good job doing for them what they should do for themselves, protecting them from their mistakes, and making them lose respect for you, but more importanty, for themselves. In short, thanks for making their addiciton worse, douche.
I've known and know a lot of junkies. I have seen none stick to abstinence without a hard motivational push from outside thet sometimes goes against "their" will.


Good is subjective in its own right. If an addict thinks drugs are good, than drugs are good to him.
No, they're not. If you would to think that drinking sulphuric acid is good for you, that would not make it good for you, you'd still die.


It's his or her will, not yours.
It is not. They are not autonomous- not in control of theirselves. You cannot call addiction an act of will that would against the definition of "addiction", because that would mean every addict can leave his addiction by another act of will, which is false.


According to you. Good to me is a lack of exploitation and poverty.
Unhealthy living is the exploatation of health, and health is the biggest treasure.


Patronizing little shit. Mind your own backyard.
Fuck you **** .l. Or what?


Yes, non-aggressive voluntarism... unless of course they disagree with them, than you can beat them with sticks to your heart's content.
I have not attacked or provoked anyone to attack me (initiated violence- physical or verbal) in my life (except a few times in elementary school).


That's not what I'm denying, but the idea that you can force liberation on people.
Of cource you can't. Eg. what happened to me on the street. I'm walking through a park, listening to music, chilling, and I see a guy and a girl sitting on a bench, guy holding her and hitting her on the face. I get to them and kick him in the face. The girl is in shock for a couple of seconds, and as I get down and start pounding the guy, she start pushing me and yelling at me to stop beating her boyfriend. After a maybe a minute of discussion I left.

Ofcourse you can't liberate someone who doesn't want to liberated, but help should be offered, and put into practice even against the captive's will, but if they continously opposse the help, they should be left do their demise, not helped in any way and should be shuned, cut-off like a tumor from interaction in order not to infect the healthy tissue.

IMO, to have a clinic that heroin junkies go to when in withdrawal, and they get heroin for free so that that wouldn't maybe rob someone is idiotic (I heard there are places like that in some Western Europe countries). They sould be offered help, and treated even if they don't ask for treatment. If they continuosly resist help, the first option is that they should be left on their own and not helped when they get in trouble. That could result in being killed by someone defending themselves against an attemp of robbery, or rotting in jail for some criminal offence they would most likely commit, but could also result in someone else getting harmed or killed because some junkie needs money for a fix. So you can treat them (and confine them to protect society if the treatment doesn't work), or be an enabler and thereby act like drug addiction is a good thing.

[Revolution starts with U]

Self-harm is defined as a psychological illness even in today's crapy medicine.

Don't trust medicine, thinks QM is bogus... but not surprising as most of my idealist liberal friends take the same stance as you.



People who injure themselves or allow others to do so should be treated, yes.

Even if it's voluntary? What happened to non-aggression?



They had no reason to lie before, such polls do not result in being arrested because that would defeat the purpose of any poll.

The reason they had to lie is the stigma. In a society where it's legal (meaning you're not immediately dismissed as a hoodlum) the stigma isn't so pervasive.



Not treatment, but enablement.


Ya, that is exactly what you're suggesting; not treating them, but enabling them.


As I said, I think addicts should be treated, not jailed and then let loose when their sentance expired. In that kind of system, they would hide only out of wish to stay junkies, in which case they should be in fear, because no healthy society wants junkies in their midst.

Next time I see a diabetes patient eating candy I'm going to run up in their face and yell "junkie!" Does that sound good to you?
It's far more of a disease than a choice. But of course you don't have to think of these things with the privelage of having a non-addictive makeup. You can just dismiss them as "not good as me" right?



I personally wouldn't give a dime to treat someone who wants to do drugs or live unhealthy. Why should anyone living healthy give money for treatment of those who don't take care of their health?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis
Discovered PCR while tripping on LSD. Take your idealism somewhere else friend. Things aren't bad in and of their own right. They are made bad by people, or more specifically, minds.
The reason you pay for treatment for addicts is that it's a gigantic public health hazard and it costs us a lot of money for them to continue what they're doing. You're going to end up paying more if you don't get them treatment.



Neither I said you should. Help should be not just offered to them, and then if they "change their mind" canceled. Of course they would change their mind, they're addicts.

That's all well and good. But what you need to do is stop dismissing them as "junkies" who make a "choice."



I've known and know a lot of junkies. I have seen none stick to abstinence without a hard motivational push from outside thet sometimes goes against "their" will.

And do you know how many of my personal friends and family were forced into treatment and died shortly after they got out... trying to chase that dragon. You're not going to force help onto them. The only thing you can do is force them to face the consequence of their decisions, and encourage them to seek treatment on their own. Forcing them into it is no subsitute to them actually having the drive to do it themselves.



No, they're not. If you would to think that drinking sulphuric acid is good for you, that would not make it good for you, you'd still die.

If I percieve dying as good for me, it's good to me.



It is not. They are not autonomous- not in control of theirselves. You cannot call addiction an act of will that would against the definition of "addiction", because that would mean every addict can leave his addiction by another act of will, which is false.

That's actually what I'm tyring to convey to you. WHich means, you missed my point. It's their life, only they can fix it. You can not DO things for them. You can only BE things for them.



Unhealthy living is the exploatation of health, and health is the biggest treasure.

You're just making up your own definition of "exploitation" now...



Fuck you **** .l. Or what?

What is this? Did you take that as a threat? lulz :lol:
It's their decision to make, not yours. If they want to beat the shit out of themselves, more power to them.



I have not attacked or provoked anyone to attack me (initiated violence- physical or verbal) in my life (except a few times in elementary school).

No, you just let the state do it on your behalf. (Except the story you tell just below this where you literally initiate violence against someone. I get it, he was already violent. But not to you. So between the two of you, you are the aggressor.)


IMO, to have a clinic that heroin junkies go to when in withdrawal, and they get heroin for free so that that wouldn't maybe rob someone is idiotic (I heard there are places like that in some Western Europe countries). They sould be offered help, and treated even if they don't ask for treatment. If they continuosly resist help, the first option is that they should be left on their own and not helped when they get in trouble. That could result in being killed by someone defending themselves against an attemp of robbery, or rotting in jail for some criminal offence they would most likely commit, but could also result in someone else getting harmed or killed because some junkie needs money for a fix. So you can treat them (and confine them to protect society if the treatment doesn't work), or be an enabler and thereby act like drug addiction is a good thing.
I've never heard of a clinic giving away free heroin... free needles yes. And that's a good thing. But free heroin? Never heard of it. Source plz
I mean, you're on the right track here. Let them face the consequence of their decisions. But you miss the bus when you start dismissing them and "leaving them" to it. It has to be about opennes, honesty, and inclusion. It has to be worth it to them. Addiction is a social issue, more than it is a personal one.

[fabian]

Don't trust medicine
Don't trust anything, think for yourself and varify everything.


Even if it's voluntary? What happened to non-aggression?
Voluntarism is applicable on sane people. Self-injury is a symptom of psychological illness.


The reason they had to lie is the stigma. In a society where it's legal (meaning you're not immediately dismissed as a hoodlum) the stigma isn't so pervasive.
Stigma by an anonimous poll? Yeah right.


Ya, that is exactly what you're suggesting; not treating them, but enabling them.
Enabler telling someone who wants all addicts free of their addiction that he's an enabler. The things that I will read here.


Next time I see a diabetes patient eating candy I'm going to run up in their face and yell "junkie!" Does that sound good to you?
Just don't yell.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis
Discovered PCR while tripping on LSD.
"He has promoted AIDS denialism, climate change denial, and his belief in astrology." :laugh:


Take your idealism somewhere else friend. Things aren't bad in and of their own right.
Of yeah they are. It's not the mind that makes drinking sulphuric acid bad.


The reason you pay for treatment for addicts is that it's a gigantic public health hazard
Uproot it, and it's not a hazard any more.


And do you know how many of my personal friends and family were forced into treatment and died shortly after they got out... trying to chase that dragon.
What are you trying to say? That they would have a better chance to live and be healthy by continuing to do drugs?


It's their life, only they can fix it.
They cannot without help. If it was that easy for junkies to stop being junkies no one would use the word "addiction", we'd all use just "recreational drug use" instead.


You're just making up your own definition of "exploitation" now..
Basic definition would be "using in an unjust or cruel manner".


Except the story you tell just below this where you literally initiate violence against someone.
:confused: Defensive violence is initiation of violence? Those are two contradictory and oppossite things by their definions. And you were your logics professor favourite student?


I've never heard of a clinic giving away free heroin... free needles yes. And that's a good thing. But free heroin? Never heard of it. Source plz
link (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gTkinlRauGzVuolBAMquCoxnIbbA)


Addiction is a social issue, more than it is a personal one.
That's what I'm saying all along :lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

Don't trust anything, think for yourself and varify everything.

I mean, I do agree with that. And most of medicine IS bogus (as told to me by the Dean of nursing lulz, she said if quantified it would be like 40% of western medicine is pure placebo). Just sayin...



Voluntarism is applicable on sane people. Self-injury is a symptom of psychological illness.

And who gets to decide who is crazy?



Stigma by an anonimous poll? Yeah right.

Apparently you don't know how people think.



Enabler telling someone who wants all addicts free of their addiction that he's an enabler. The things that I will read here.

Who said I didn't want them free of their addictions? I'm glad to see you're not actually reading my posts... you know that part where I actually work with them instead of standing on the sidelines dismissing them as junkies.
I admit I'm an enabler, and it is something I'm working on. You sir, are still in denial.


Just don't yell.

See what I mean.... you don't care. You claim to want them to fix themselves, but really they just provide a convenient population for you to demonize. This kind of attitude needs treatment even more than the addicts, if you ask me.



"He has promoted AIDS denialism, climate change denial, and his belief in astrology." :laugh:

Not the point, but I'm glad to see a champion of logic being so illogical and using an ad hominem. The point is that he made a major scientific breakthrough on drugs. It's reported that Crick (maybe Watson, but I think Crick) was on LSD when he discovered the double helix. He never denied it, merely saying "if you print it, I'll sue."
It's not the drugs that are the problem. It's the underlying genetic tendency for addiction.



Of yeah they are. It's not the mind that makes drinking sulphuric acid bad.

Only mind can make anything "bad" dummy :lol:
Nice logic, bro :rolleyes:



Uproot it, and it's not a hazard any more.

This doesn't actually mean anything. It's just a series of words.


What are you trying to say? That they would have a better chance to live and be healthy by continuing to do drugs?
No, what I'm saying is that forced treatment only works in certain cases, and exacerbates the addiction (possibly leading to overdose) in certain others. What I am saying is that we need a comprehensive reexamination of how we deal with addiction in this society.
Addicts need a change in their family and loved ones, just as much as they need actual treatment; and that treatment needs to be long-term. We can't just stick'em in a facility and forget about them. When's the last time you actually went to a prison or facility and talked with addicts, or even their counselors? When's the last time you've actually looked up some research on addiction?



They cannot without help. If it was that easy for junkies to stop being junkies no one would use the word "addiction", we'd all use just "recreational drug use" instead.

And I will say it again; forcing them to help themselves while at the same time demonizing them, will make their addiction worse. There are 3 basic rules with dealing with addicts (their are tons, but these are the basis);
1. Don't do for them what they should do for themselves
2. Don't coverrup or protect them from their mistakes.
3. Don't verbally or mentally abuse them

You're commiting all 3 of the "cardinal sins" of enabling.



Basic definition would be "using in an unjust or cruel manner".

If we're talking about objects, you don't even need unjust or cruel. It's just using them. But you're kind-of mixing that use of it, with the use of it about humans. Unjust exploitation only happens between humans, not humans and objects.



:confused: Defensive violence is initiation of violence? Those are two contradictory and oppossite things by their definions. And you were your logics professor favourite student?

You were not defending yourself. You fancied yourself the girl's hero, and jumped to her defense without her asking for it (I'm not saying what you did was a bad thing). You were an aggressor... and that's the problem with the non-aggression magical spell; the definition of aggressive is arbitrary.



(http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gTkinlRauGzVuolBAMquCoxnIbbA)link (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gTkinlRauGzVuolBAMquCoxnIbbA)
(http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gTkinlRauGzVuolBAMquCoxnIbbA)

Interesting. I'll have to check that out. I wouldn't agree with that either. I support needle programs. I'm thinking giving them free heroin will make it worse.



That's what I'm saying all along :lol:

I have noticed at certain points that we're talking past each other, where we actually agree. The point I am trying to get across to you is that demonizing them and doing for them what they do for themselves is definition enabling. There's a place called FA you can look up (Family's Anonymous) for the friends and family of addicts. You might want to check it out.

[fabian]

I mean, I do agree with that. And most of medicine IS bogus (as told to me by the Dean of nursing lulz, she said if quantified it would be like 40% of western medicine is pure placebo).
I don't think it's really bogus, it works in reparing damaged health, but health is damaged in the first place by unhealthy living, so (most of) medicine is in essence unnecessary, because almost all of conditions that recquire medical care are avoidable by healthy living.


And who gets to decide who is crazy?
It's pretty simple. If someone has impaired judgement as is acting contrary to the rational, he obviously has mental problems. Direct self-injury is a clear symptom of that, being that both nature and reason point us towards survavial, health and absence of pain as cardinal values.


you know that part where I actually work with them instead of standing on the sidelines dismissing them as junkies.
At least I'm not enabling them. I'm not much into that topic, never had any teaching (I guess there's a course for that) about directly helping junkies, but I know enabling them is not helping. The closest thing to directly helping a junkie I came is being a girl friend who was on heroin and together we managed to heal her addiction in a couple of years.


You claim to want them to fix themselves, but really they just provide a convenient population for you to demonize.
I have no desire to see that kind of population existing. My wish is for all of them to healthy. And I'm not for demonizing them, I dont see them as people to be hated or anything like that, I see them as people who have a problem. I've defended junkies on the street from beatings or being bullied, but calling them junkies isn't demonizing them, it's the truth, and if they fell bad when someone calls them a junkie, they should feel bad, couse addiction is bad.


Not the point, but I'm glad to see a champion of logic being so illogical and using an ad hominem.
Ad hominem in the case of people who believe in astrology is totally justified and valid, those people are plain idiots. Plus the aids and climate changde denialism :blink:


It's the underlying genetic tendency for addiction.
No such thing. It's a matter of people's moral choices.


No, what I'm saying is that forced treatment only works in certain cases, and exacerbates the addiction (possibly leading to overdose) in certain others.
As much as I'm against christianity, christian drug treatment centers in my country are the only ones that work. The national one's do no help.


When's the last time you actually went to a prison or facility and talked with addicts
I did talk to addicts when I was prison..


When's the last time you've actually looked up some research on addiction?
I've known and know tons of addicts, that's enough research for me.


1. Don't do for them what they should do for themselves
2. Don't coverrup or protect them from their mistakes.
3. Don't verbally or mentally abuse them
I agree with all three. But if 1. means waiting for them to ask for treatment and canceling treatment when they change "their" mind, I'd disagree with that. I'm for starting treatment even if they don't ask for it, and continuing treatment even if they want of the program, and canceling the program only when it's obvious that they over time continuously resist the help given to them again and againt. When that happens, I'm for confining them, so they couldn't hurt anyone else.


Unjust exploitation only happens between humans, not humans and objects.
How bout polluting the planet and overusing natural resources?


You were not defending yourself.
Non-aggression axiom= violence is only legitimate against an agressor (initiator of violence). NAA doesn't presupose selfishness and lack of compassion, I'd find it idiotic to connect those..


the definition of aggressive is arbitrary.
Agression = initiation of violence. Nothing arbitrary about that.


The point I am trying to get across to you is that demonizing them and doing for them what they do for themselves is definition enabling.
And I'm not for doing neither.


There's a place called FA you can look up (Family's Anonymous) for the friends and family of addicts. You might want to check it out.
Pretty sure there's no such thing in my country.

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't think it's really bogus, it works in reparing damaged health, but health is damaged in the first place by unhealthy living, so (most of) medicine is in essence unnecessary, because almost all of conditions that recquire medical care are avoidable by healthy living.

But you're assuming healthy living is better or more important than having fun. That's a judgement call, an opinion.


It's pretty simple. If someone has impaired judgement as is acting contrary to the rational, he obviously has mental problems. Direct self-injury is a clear symptom of that, being that both nature and reason point us towards survavial, health and absence of pain as cardinal values.
How do they point us to that? What is "impaired judgement?" Why are people crazy if they like to cut themselves?



At least I'm not enabling them.
Unfortunately, you are.

I'm not much into that topic, never had any teaching (I guess there's a course for that) about directly helping junkies, but I know enabling them is not helping. The closest thing to directly helping a junkie I came is being a girl friend who was on heroin and together we managed to heal her addiction in a couple of years.
Somehow I doubt this story is true... or at least not fully true.




I have no desire to see that kind of population existing. My wish is for all of them to healthy. And I'm not for demonizing them, I dont see them as people to be hated or anything like that, I see them as people who have a problem. I've defended junkies on the street from beatings or being bullied, but calling them junkies isn't demonizing them, it's the truth, and if they fell bad when someone calls them a junkie, they should feel bad, couse addiction is bad.

Go back and read your posts. If you think you're not demonizing them, you're delusional.



Ad hominem in the case of people who believe in astrology is totally justified and valid, those people are plain idiots. Plus the aids and climate changde denialism :blink:

No, ad hominems are never valid; by definition.



No such thing. It's a matter of people's moral choices.

You have no idea what addiction is. "Choice" plays such a small role, it's not even worth mentioning. Maybe for trying it in the first place. After that, it's mostly a matter if you have addictive personality, which is pretty much genetic, and the reason my brother is an alcoholic, and I'm not. He got my Gpa's and father's genes.



As much as I'm against christianity, christian drug treatment centers in my country are the only ones that work. The national one's do no help.

Source?



I did talk to addicts when I was prison..

About their addiction?



I've known and know tons of addicts, that's enough research for me.

Personal anectdotes are not research.


I agree with all three. But if 1. means waiting for them to ask for treatment and canceling treatment when they change "their" mind, I'd disagree with that. I'm for starting treatment even if they don't ask for it, and continuing treatment even if they want of the program, and canceling the program only when it's obvious that they over time continuously resist the help given to them again and againt.
So basically you are for doing for them what they should do for themselves?


When that happens, I'm for confining them, so they couldn't hurt anyone else.

So basically you are for covering up or protecting them from the consequences of their decisions?



How bout polluting the planet and overusing natural resources?

By what, "exploiting" the planet? I just don't see how that makes sense in common vernacular. Maybe it does. It's not important.



Non-aggression axiom= violence is only legitimate against an agressor (initiator of violence). NAA doesn't presupose selfishness and lack of compassion, I'd find it idiotic to connect those..

You were not defending yourself, and had no idea if she wanted to get beat up (not to say she did, just pointing out the facts). I support what you did, he deserved it. But she didn't ask for it, may have wanted it, and you were the aggressor between he and you. To deny that is mental gymnastics, and exactly why I could never support the arbitrary non-aggression woo-woo.



Agression = initiation of violence. Nothing arbitrary about that.

Is a boxing match aggressive? Are boxers "mentally insane self abusers" (as you implied?) Should we beat up/lock up all boxers and ufc afficionados?



And I'm not for doing neither.

Except you are.



Pretty sure there's no such thing in my country.
It's a global orginization. There very may well be, and I'm sure they would love to have a new one founded if not.

[fabian]

But you're assuming healthy living is better or more important than having fun.
Not much fun in pain as a consequence of illness.


How do they point us to that? What is "impaired judgement?" Why are people crazy if they like to cut themselves?
If this is not trolling, and your serious, I'm worried about your sanity.



Somehow I doubt this story is true... or at least not fully true.
Doubt all you want.


If you think you're not demonizing them, you're delusional.
Saying the truth is demonizing.



"Choice" plays such a small role, it's not even worth mentioning.
Thenk you. That's why I'm for starting treatment for junkies even if they don't ask for it.


Source?
There a few sites online, but are on serbian. I was in the "Land of the Living" drug center many times (with that girl friend I mentiond) that is run by orthodox priests and monks, and I was amazed to see people (among them a few who are not christian) coming to the center years after treatment to heng out with the people runing it, to help a little, or just to say hi and show gratitude.


About their addiction?
Not into great details but yes.


So basically you are for doing for them what they should do for themselves?
What concretely should they do for themselves? Decide to ask for treatment? When in treatment to depent on their own will do stay there? You said it yourself- addiction has almost nothing to to with their choice. When they're addicted, they don't have a will of their own, and if you wait for them to ask for treatment, and let "them" choose when to leave, you might as well let them die and not pretend to want to help them at all.


So basically you are for covering up or protecting them from the consequences of their decisions?
If they're untreatable, I'm for protecting others from them.


You were not defending yourself
Irrelevant. NAA = Violence is valid against an agressor.


Is a boxing match aggressive? Are boxers "mentally insane self abusers" (as you implied?)
If they are aware of the damage that professional boxing does to their brain and kidneys, yes.

[ВАЛТЕР]

If they are aware of the damage that professional boxing does to their brain and kidneys, yes.

I've been boxing for 7+ years. It was the only thing that kept kept me off the streets and out of trouble as a teenager with many of my friends out selling drugs and getting in fights. Boxing saved my life. Now you call me a "mentally insane self-abuser"?

Fuck you.

[fabian]

Maybe if you have been on the street (I've learned how to fight in hooligan brawls, you don't need boxing) instead of participating in the religion of capitalism you wouldn't be a a moral neoliberal.


Now you call me a "mentally insane self-abuser"?
Do you want to have Parkinson's syndrome?

[Raúl Duke]

Drop Acid, Not Bombs!

This is the most dumbest thread I ever seen.

I find it disingenuous this connection you're making between "capitalist consumerist mindset/framework" and drug use when the majority of capitalist countries prohibit drugs harshly to the point of a law enforcement "war" (i.e. "the war on drugs").

But let's get to the meat and potatoes: Do you want to continue (and/or escalate) the current "war on drugs" plus expand to include a prohibition of all sorts of other things?

Because if the answer is yes, than what kind of socialist are you? Do you know that the war on drugs has been increasingly more life-ruining on working class communities and people of color; besides that it disproportionally targets them more so than any other class, etc?

Also, as other people have pointed out, divergent drug law models that are based on the idea that the "drug issue" should be a health one rather than a legal/crime one have been more helpful to addicts and don't ruin people's lives?

P.S. You Cannot Get Addicted to Psychedelics.

[fabian]

Do you know that the war on drugs has been increasingly more life-ruining on working class communities and people of color; besides that it disproportionally targets them more so than any other class, etc?
And the spread of drugs is a good thing for the working people? The fact that the bourgeois "opposition" to drugs makes things worse doesn't mean that drugs are good for people. Neighter ban of drugs or decriminalization work, both increace drug use. A racionalist metal revolution is necesary, when majority of people start really valuing freedom, freedom from addiction will become a natural consequence of that, and drugs more easily abandoned, and a (real, full fledged, extermination) war on drug producers and dealers (as a part of those parasite group of people who live of other people's misery) can be lead.


the idea that the "drug issue" should be a health one rather than a legal/crime one
Health should be a legal issue. Health care should be universal. Society should value health and stive to maintain it.


Found a text on english on the capitalist character of sports:

Sport as the religion of capitalism: An Interview With Ljubodrag Simonovic (http://theageofnepotism.com/2010/07/sport-as-the-religion-of-capitalism-an-interview-with-ljubodrag-simonovic/)

[Raúl Duke]

And the spread of drugs is a good thing for the working people?
Notice how you make loaded false assumptions?
I never said that.


A racionalist metal revolution is necesary:huh::rolleyes:


a (real, full fledged, extermination) war on drug producers and dealersIn other words, realistically speaking, you do want a war on drugs and you want prohibition? Simple yes or no

The chances of this "mental revolution" from happening where everyone is a vegan straight-edge are close to zero.

Decriminalization has at least not ruined peoples lives through incarceration and being labeled a criminal/convict, it makes it easier to provide medical help and rehabilitation for addicts, etc.

war on drugs have done nothing positive.

[fabian]

Notice how you make loaded false assumptions?
I never said that.
There's an unsuccessful "war" on drugs. I'm for a successful war on drugs. You don't agree with with me. What's left besides you being for drugs.


:huh::rolleyes:
Yeah, a metal revolution \m/ :lol: Typo, I meant a mental revolution.


In other words, realistically speaking, you do want a war on drugs and you want prohibition? Simple yes or no
Did you admit to your parents that you like to eat feces and dirt? Simple yes or no.

Obviously, some questions cannot be answerd by a "simple yes or no". I am for war on drugs and prohibition but after the forementioned mental revolution.


The chances of this "mental revolution" from happening where everyone is a vegan straight-edge are close to zero.
A millenia ago when women wanter to learn reading and writing, there was a good chance she could get burned on a stake. I suppose a lot of medieval women had the same defeatist attitude.


Decriminalization has at least not ruined peoples lives through incarceration and being labeled a criminal/convict
It just ruined their lives by giving them up to drugs and being junkies.


war on drugs have done nothing positive.
Ofcourse, because the bourgeois establishments lead it, and it is their interest to have drugs and vices in general spread among the working class. Unhealthy people with weak willpower are easily controled by the tools of mass media and the education institutions by propaganda and indoctrination. Critical thinking, values and virtue oriented, ascetic (and thus strong willed) people are not so easily brainwashed and subdued.

[Revolution starts with U]

Not much fun in pain as a consequence of illness.

Not the point, it's not your choice to make. You're being paternalistic, oh great-father...



If this is not trolling, and your serious, I'm worried about your sanity.

It's not your sanity to worry about. And no, I don't cut myself. I don't see what's the big deal.



Saying the truth is demonizing.

No, it can be. I'm sure you think every word, even if unverfified, is the truth, if it comes out of your mouth tho :rolleyes:




Thenk you. That's why I'm for starting treatment for junkies even if they don't ask for it.

Good luck. It rarely works.
But either way, it was YOU who said it was due to their "moral choices" and not, as I said, "underlying genetic inclination to addiction." That's the problem tho, you think it's a matter of "moral choice," and that's why you think you swoop in and save the day, like Superman. But all you're really doing is further alienating them from their ability to choose for themselves; which is the core of the problem in the first place. Only THEY can conquer their addictive nature.



There a few sites online, but are on serbian. I was in the "Land of the Living" drug center many times (with that girl friend I mentiond) that is run by orthodox priests and monks, and I was amazed to see people (among them a few who are not christian) coming to the center years after treatment to heng out with the people runing it, to help a little, or just to say hi and show gratitude.

I'm not going to deny the efficacy of religious treatment centers, they do fine. I just want to see a source that they do better than secular.



Not into great details but yes.

I'm sure that conversation mostly went "why you bein so stupid, man."


What concretely should they do for themselves? Decide to ask for treatment?
Ya. The likelihood of them not relapsing if someone else puts them in treatment is very low.


When in treatment to depent on their own will do stay there? You said it yourself- addiction has almost nothing to to with their choice. When they're addicted, they don't have a will of their own, and if you wait for them to ask for treatment, and let "them" choose when to leave, you might as well let them die and not pretend to want to help them at all.

You could try to help them, and they overdose and die anyway. Someone once said to the counsellor I'm learning from, "what if the one time I don't yell at her before she leaves, is the day she dies?" Her response, "what if one of the days you yell at her is the day she dies?"



If they're untreatable, I'm for protecting others from them.

Nobody is untreatable, some have a harder time than others. Half the problem is getting them into long-term care. The funding is just not there... probably because of the millions of dollars we spend on enforcement; spending which it seems you're all about.



Irrelevant. NAA = Violence is valid against an agressor.

So I would have been valid in coming in and kicking YOUR ass :rolleyes:
NAA is woo woo.



If they are aware of the damage that professional boxing does to their brain and kidneys, yes.
Paternalistic lifestylist... :bored:

[Revolution starts with U]

There's an unsuccessful "war" on drugs. I'm for a successful war on drugs. You don't agree with with me. What's left besides you being for drugs.

What exactly is different about your war on drugs and the current one? I have seen nothing, other than "making them make better choices."



Obviously, some questions cannot be answerd by a "simple yes or no". I am for war on drugs and prohibition but after the forementioned mental revolution.

Oh, I see. So you're really just an idealist?



A millenia ago when women wanter to learn reading and writing, there was a good chance she could get burned on a stake. I suppose a lot of medieval women had the same defeatist attitude.

Ya, it was a "mental revolution" that brought that about... not class struggle or anything, not a material revolution.. oh no. It was liberal academics... that's right :lol:

[fabian]

I'm not going to deny the efficacy of religious treatment centers, they do fine. I just want to see a source that they do better than secular. The only thing that went wiral was a TV show (in Serbian) with a guest priest and a doctor from the national drug treatment centar in the capital, who said that they "cannot keep track of their successfulness, because they can't go around following people when they leave the centar". The response of the priest was that people he helped come regularly on their own to check in and say thanks, and the doctor just shut up and waited for the show host to change the subject.


But all you're really doing is further alienating them from their ability to choose for themselves; which is the core of the problem in the first place. Only THEY can conquer their addictive nature.Thats in contradiction with the definition of addiction. If you could get out of it by yourself, it wouldn't be called an addiction. People get into addiction by choice, but once in it, there's no choise- they have to be addicts. If they're not helped, they'll just die (and probably harm someone before that).


Someone once said to the counsellor I'm learning from, "what if the one time I don't yell at her before she leaves, is the day she dies?" Her response, "what if one of the days you yell at her is the day she dies?" That's idiotic. If a junkie stays in the program there's a chance of betterment, but if he leaves, disaster is certain.


Paternalistic lifestylist...
Professional sports is exploitative and destructive. If you're paternalist for wanting to abolish capitalism, then I am too. Read the link "Sport the religion of capitalism".


Ya, it was a "mental revolution" that brought that about... not class struggle or anything, not a material revolution.. oh no. It was liberal academics... that's right
The fact that the mentioned happened instead of a radical mental revolution is why we don't have a just and free society but only "bigger cages and longer chains".

[Revolution starts with U]

The only thing that went wiral was a TV show (in Serbian) with a guest priest and a doctor from the national drug treatment centar in the capital, who said that they "cannot keep track of their successfulness, because they can't go around following people when they leave the centar". The response of the priest was that people he helped come regularly on their own to check in and say thanks, and the doctor just shut up and waited for the show host to change the subject.

Source?


Thats in contradiction with the definition of addiction.
No, in fact it is the firm foundation on which nearly all treatment relies; that only the addict can fix himself. That's the whole point behind 12 step programs, and drug counselling. They can recieve assistance in understanding things, but not assistance in actually changing their lifestyle to accomodate for their addiction. There's a certain personal responsiblity an addict must create to have the strength to move forward. Holding their hand and doing things for them only prolongs the inevitable, and nearly assures that they will collapse under the weight of the world again, and relapse.


If you could get out of it by yourself, it wouldn't be called an addiction.
That's simply not true at all. Addiction simply means the continued use of a substance or activity despite negative consequences. Nothing about addiction says that they cannot conquer it themselves, and an aquantance of mine P** B*** never went to treatment for his heroin addiction, and is 5 years clean.


People get into addiction by choice, but once in it, there's no choise-
That's only partially true. People first do a drug by choice. What determines addiction is if they have the underlying psychological profile of an addict. I don't have that, which is why I've done coke and oxycontin, but stopped quickly.


they have to be addicts. If they're not helped, they'll just die (and probably harm someone before that).

It depends on what you mean by help. If you mean offering them loving support, yes. If you mean holding their hands for them and cleaning up after them, no. This type of behavior only prolongs the disease and is known as "enabling."


That's idiotic. If a junkie stays in the program there's a chance of betterment, but if he leaves, disaster is certain.

Not necessarily. The likelihood of relapse if a person leaves treatment is high, sure. That doesn't necessarily mean stopping treatment always reverts to relapse.



Professional sports is exploitative and destructive. If you're paternalist for wanting to abolish capitalism, then I am too. Read the link "Sport the religion of capitalism".

Nothing about boxing (note, I am not specifically referring to professional boxing) is inherent to capitalism. This should be painfully obvious seeing as how it was codified during the time of your precious classical Greece. What's paternalistic is you telling me I'm not allowed to make personal lifestyle choices you disagree with. It's not your body to stop from being destroyed, and I harm noone but myself and my opponent in the process.

Were you king nobody would be allowed to box (tho they would anyway in back alleys), nor smoke a little pot (tho they would anyway), or get fat. Death to fatty! Id hate to be member of your little puritan platonic oligarchy.



The fact that the mentioned happened instead of a radical mental revolution is why we don't have a just and free society but only "bigger cages and longer chains".
So what's your point? The likelihood of this worldwide "mental revolution" is slim to none, in the first place. People don't have the material interests, at this present juncture, in pure and eternal rationality. But more importantly, it seems you think that ideas like "reason and logic" are more important to material progress than material situations like "alienation and poverty." Is this correct? Are you saying that if reasoned intellectuals were the ruling class we would be living in glorious socialist paradise now?

[fabian]

Id hate to be member of your little puritan platonic oligarchy.
We wouldn't have you, cause your basically a neoliberal. Everything you say to me about paternalism can be said of your opposition to capitalism, and every excuse you have for your moral neoliberalism can be used by economic neoliberals as a justification of capitalism.

[Raúl Duke]

There's no such thing as "moral neo-liberalism."

Plus just claiming people are "neoliberal" is basically an ad-homineum and not a real argument.
Which, throwing ad-homineums, making assumptions, and using loaded questions is a lot of what you do; none are real arguments or fooling anyone here.


A millenia ago when women wanter to learn reading and writingProgress in society don't happen because of some "idea change" out of nowhere.
The Civil Rights in the US did not happen because of a "mental revolution," Woman's rights didn't happen from a "mental revolution" either. All had popular movements and struggles. Even if you made an anti-drug league movement, your movement will never have traction among the masses anymore; the slow "mental paradigm" ("mental revolution") shift in the US is towards reform of drug laws. One reason is because working class people and people of color have been fucked over by these drug laws, which unnecessarily criminalizes them .


I suppose a lot of medieval women had the same defeatist attitude.Yes they did, because feudalism wasn't conducive for them to gain those abilities. It took the rise of capitalism and it's public school systems to educate people, both men and women, how to read and write because the material conditions (capitalism) needed a working class with at least some minimal level of education. In other words, it takes either a movement to win rights or it comes about, emanates, from the material conditions from the economic base. No "mental revolution," mental shifts don't come from the air.


It just ruined their lives by giving them up to drugs and being junkies.
No, there's more to it than that and you're purposely ignoring it.
A criminalizing stance in drug laws makes it hard for people who have been convicted by those laws, some for things as simple as simple personal possession, to get a job, to be able to rent a place to live, etc.
Plus, not everyone who uses drugs is an addict. There's no such thing as reefer madness.

[Revolution starts with U]

We wouldn't have you, cause your basically a neoliberal. Everything you say to me about paternalism can be said of your opposition to capitalism, and every excuse you have for your moral neoliberalism can be used by economic neoliberals as a justification of capitalism.

Do it. If you can do it, do it. I implore you too.

Guy who basically buys the entire foundation of right libertarians, claims to be a real libertarian, calls me a neoliberal... implies that communism can turn away certain proles for their moral/ethical personal choices :scared:

[fabian]

There's no such thing as "moral neo-liberalism."
Yes, there is, it's also called libertinism.


Plus just claiming people are "neoliberal" is basically an ad-homineum and not a real argument.
It's stating facts.


The Civil Rights in the US did not happen because of a "mental revolution," Woman's rights didn't happen from a "mental revolution" either
Which I already said (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2431058&postcount=92). Why are arguing against me by saing something which I said, are you retarded?


Even if you made an anti-drug league movement, your movement will never have traction among the masses anymore; the slow "mental paradigm" ("mental revolution") shift in the US is towards reform of drug laws. One reason is because working class people and people of color have been fucked over by these drug laws, which unnecessarily criminalizes them .
Argument from majority?


A criminalizing stance in drug laws makes it hard for people who have been convicted by those laws, some for things as simple as simple personal possession, to get a job, to be able to rent a place to live, etc.
Which means that the employment and living condicions of former junkies should be changed, and not that drugs should be legal.


Guy who basically buys the entire foundation of right libertarians
Logic and NAP are not a right-libertarian in itself, just as anti-bolsevism isn't nazist in itself.


, claims to be a real libertarian
I am not a libertarian, and have never called myself that, I have very little in common with them.

[Revolution starts with U]

The funniest part is that neoliberals, real neoliberals not this made up term, are quite socially conservative, in my experience... you know, with the likes of Reagan, Thatcher, and Pinochet on its side...

wtf comrade :confused:

Besides, this term was made to describe how neoliberal states supposedly promote leftist goals voluntarily. None you are calling "moral neoliberals" support a neoliberal state. So in essence, you're just being a dumbshit. It's all about voluntarism, something of which you support. So if I'm a "moral neoliberal" than that makes you just a plain old neoliberal... comrade.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes, there is, it's also called libertinism.

Did you really expect a forum of materialists to not check your facts?


A libertine is one devoid of most moral restraints, which are seen as unnecessary or undesirable, especially one who ignores or even spurns accepted morals and forms of behaviour sanctified by the larger society. Libertines place value on physical pleasures, meaning those experienced through the senses

Nope. No libertines here.


It's stating facts.

No.


Why are arguing against me by saing something which I said, are you retarded?

That's ableism, buddy.

Our point is that mental revolutions don't create new societies. Material conditions create new societies, which create mental revolutions (to put it simply. It's far more complex, but this is good enough).


Argument from majority?

Best you can hope for when it comes to ethics.


Which means that the employment and living condicions of former junkies should be changed, and not that drugs should be legal.

So you're not only going to criminalize use and addiction, you're going to change the legal code to not make felons unable to get good jobs and housing. And you're going to do this without an "argument from majority?" :lol:
Why not just decriminalize use, and use the savings to fund more treatment centers?


I am not a libertarian, and have never called myself that, I have very little in common with them.
My apologies.

[Revolution starts with U]

Also;

Do it. If you can do it, do it. I implore you too
I'm waiting...

[fabian]

The funniest part is that neoliberals, real neoliberals not this made up term, are quite socially conservative
If there's such thing as moral conservatism, there's such thing as moral liberalism.


So in essence, you're just being a dumbshit.
Your mom is a dumbshit.


It's all about voluntarism, something of which you support.
Voluntarism you talk about is also a justification of capitalism. Volutarism I talk about implies strenght of will, and not surrendering of one's will to addictions and vices.


So if I'm a "moral neoliberal" than that makes you just a plain old neoliberal... comrade.
Classical liberalism would be more appropriate, having in mind virtue and reason oriented ascetism of Rousseau and Locke, which, as i recently read, was also present among spanish communists.


Did you really expect a forum of materialists to not check your facts?
If there's such a thing as moral conservatism (called social convervatism in America), there's also it's opposite.


Nope. No libertines here.
Yeah, you all here are against intoxication, promiscuity, gambling, unhealthy living and vices in general.


Material conditions create new societies, which create mental revolutions
And material conditions change without prior deliberation, but at random? or as determined consequence of the flow of history. Nah, I don't accept determinism.


you're going to change the legal code to not make felons unable to get good jobs and housing.
I was talking about making it easer for them to get jobs and housing. Man, you're stupid.


Why not just decriminalize use, and use the savings to fund more treatment centers?
Because that's idiotic. It's like you're saying- I'm not gonna waste my money and build and maintain sewers, I'm just gonna eat shit, and use that money I saved on sewers to buy mouth fresheners.


I'm waiting...
I have not spoke with someone more stupid. Do I have to draw it for you? Just read your words and change the words health with socialism and drugs and unhealthy food with capitalism and exploatation.

[Conscript]

Is someone really arguing for social conservative morality? I haven't read the thread, fabian's posts are kinda crap.

[fabian]

Is someone really arguing for social conservative morality?
Yep. Many socialists and anarchists have advocated ascetism throughout history. If you find being healthy and without vices "crap", pity for you..

[Conscript]

You're a joke if you really want to regulate that shit. Nobody cares about your subjective fetishes (you even use a subjective term for the things you dislike, 'vices'), pity for you when they're thrown out the door. Things have use values for a reason.

Hopefully any future socialist constitution would reject social conservatism and other morality-legislating bullshit. I sure as hell don't want in your moral utopia and I doubt many people do.

What makes you a marxist again? This whole 'mental revolution' stuff is the biggest load of idealism I've seen in a while.

[fabian]

You're a joke if you really want to regulate that shit.
Your mama's a joke.


pity for you when they're thrown out the door.
Thrown out from where? Who's gonna throw me out?


I sure as hell don't want in your moral utopia and I doubt many people do.

Appeals to emotion and majority?


What makes you a marxist again?
Who said I'm a marxist?

[Revolution starts with U]

If there's such thing as moral conservatism, there's such thing as moral liberalism.

Sure.

Your mom is a dumbshit.

Is that supposed to anger me? This is the internet bro :lol:


Voluntarism you talk about is also a justification of capitalism. Volutarism I talk about implies strenght of will, and not surrendering of one's will to addictions and vices.

And coercing them into the lifestyle you find appealing.


Classical liberalism would be more appropriate, having in mind virtue and reason oriented ascetism of Rousseau and Locke, which, as i recently read, was also present among spanish communists.

I'm not too sure the drug war would be a classic liberal stance anyway...


Yeah, you all here are against intoxication, promiscuity, gambling, unhealthy living and vices in general.

No, I think that's what you're against. Well... it's not as if I support many of those things. I just don't find them to be that big of issues, and usually only made worse when you do make them into one.
A libertine actually practices the so-called vices. It doesn't really have anything to do with one's political stance on the issue.


And material conditions change without prior deliberation, but at random? or as determined consequence of the flow of history. Nah, I don't accept determinism.

Nobody said they did, or that it was deterministic. It's progress and abundance. (Most) People can only have a "mental revolution" when they are in an economic position to worry about justice, rather than you know... just living.


I was talking about making it easer for them to get jobs and housing. Man, you're stupid.

And I'm talking about the feasability of your ideas. You haven't yet elaborated upon that, and I suppose it is because you cannot.
So let's put all this useless personal bickering to rest. What is your fix for the issue, in detail? I would love to know.


Because that's idiotic. It's like you're saying- I'm not gonna waste my money and build and maintain sewers, I'm just gonna eat shit, and use that money I saved on sewers to buy mouth fresheners.

It's not like that at all! :lol: Where did you even get this from? :lol:
How is drug use analogues to maintaining a sewer? :lol: :laugh:
It would be more akin to eating junk food and using the savings to build and maintain healthy eating clinics.


I have not spoke with someone more stupid.
Well... at least it's good to know you don't talk to yourself :lol:

Do I have to draw it for you? Just read your words and change the words health with socialism and drugs and unhealthy food with capitalism and exploatation.
Do it, replace them. I want to see it. Don't just say something, like it seems you often do, do it.

I've yet to see you offer a critique of capital at all, and even, if I'm not mistaken, offered your support for "market socialism," ... correct?

[fabian]

And coercing them into the lifestyle you find appealing.
And you don't? You would abolish capitalism, yet no one coerces workers to work for the capitalists. So- you want to coerce people out of capitalism.

Anyways, taking a baby or a demented person to the doctor's is not coercion. Those without reason and free-will should not have the right to liberty. Animals, babies, demented people, intoxicated people and addicts.


I'm not too sure the drug war would be a classic liberal stance anyway
Yeah, they were all for shooting dope.

[Conscript]

Your mama's a joke.


Thrown out from where? Who's gonna throw me out?


Appeals to emotion and majority?


Who said I'm a marxist?

Not a single argument, nice. I like how you didn't deny you have a subjective moral fetish.

What the hell do you think legislating morality is? How is it not appealing to emotion and the majority? Hell any arguments you could present for it is predicated on that. Social conservatism is a collection of prejudices and has no place in a socialist society, it's an arbitrary fetish of some individuals and a tool used to divide and conquer political constituents by marginalizing others. In past the presence of which only helped signal the degeneration of socialism and the reliance on a new, 'moral' constituent to help prop up the state.

There's literally no good to come out of this. Thus I can say with confidence your social views are disgustingly backward. Short of warnings of side effects and dangers, 'vices' are not be regulated.
I'm wondering why you're not restricted yet.

[fabian]

I like how you didn't deny you have a subjective moral fetish.
You argumented that claim so exhaustively and persuasively that there was no point.


What the hell do you think legislating morality is?
If my ideas against drugs, gambling, promiscuity, intoxitacion and junk food, and for being addiction-free and healthy is legislating morality, then fighting against capitalism and for socialism is also legislating morality.

There is no magical line separating "morality" from "economy", miracolously making the talk about capitalism being exploitative, opressive, unjust, illegitimate, etc have nothing to do with morality. The exception is if all of your criticism of capitalism is based on it's inefficiency and instability, that's not connected to morality, but these forementioned criticisms all are. Also, with having in mind that no one in capitalism is being forced and coerced to work for the capitalist, that another ethical/ moral topic.


Thus I can say with confidence your social views are disgustingly backward.
I would say that your views are disgustingly dogmatic. I base my views reason and the falue of liberty. What's the point in liberating one self and others from an exploitative economic system, and then to accept the chains of various addictions as something "good".

[Raúl Duke]

Yes, there is, it's also called libertinism.All because you say so, doesn't make it so.


Which I already said (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2431058&postcount=92). Why are arguing against me by saing something which I said, are you retarded?You said no such thing in that post; all your arguments rely on obfuscation and obscurantism


Argument from majority?Sure, that's one way to look at it. But if you had better reading comprehension, you'll notice that I'm pointing out the degree of feasibility for your "anti-vice" "utopia;" which is nil. Every act to regulate morality/vices have been failures and have made things worse.


Classical liberalism would be more appropriate, having in mind virtue and reason oriented ascetism of Rousseau and Locke, which, as i recently read, was also present among spanish communists.No one cares, this forum is not for idealistic classical liberals; it's for revolutionary leftists. I doubt any Spanish communists of relevance gave a rat's ass for Rousseau and Locke.

But, assuming that you claim to be inspired by classical liberalism, you do know it's viewed wrong/unethical to force people to live a certain way in classical liberalism?


Yep. Many socialists and anarchists have advocated ascetism throughout history.SO what? Many socialists and anarchists have been doing dope, having promiscuous sex, and all sorts of "vices." Doesn't make them any less leftist.


Is that supposed to anger me? This is the internet bro:laugh:


Finally, this is what I'm waiting for:

You haven't yet elaborated upon that, and I suppose it is because you cannot.
So let's put all this useless personal bickering to rest. What is your fix for the issue, in detail? I would love to know.

[Conscript]

You argumented that claim so exhaustively and persuasively that there was no point.

Oh you! :blushing:


If my ideas against drugs, gambling, promiscuity, intoxitacion and junk food, and for being addiction-free and healthy is legislating morality, then fighting against capitalism and for socialism is also legislating morality.

There is no magical line separating "morality" from "economy", miracolously making the talk about capitalism being exploitative, opressive, unjust, illegitimate, etc have nothing to do with morality.

Well, the morality you're talking about is regulating of the actions of others outside of actions that infringe on another's safety, reputation, etc. out of prejudice, subjective views, and such. While there an indeed moral arguments for socialism, they don't make platforms because they are morals and get torn apart in debate.

But exploitation and oppression aren't moral arguments. You can prove the worker is exploited in production, it's not based on 'oh he's paid so crap and works in a sweat shop', it's 'the laborer is not paid the full value of his labor and the difference is appropriated by the capitalist'. There we can arrive at the conclusion that capital and labor have contradictory interests, and the existence of the state which preserves this relationship let's us conclude the laborer is also oppressed.

You're right that 'unjust' and such is a moral argument. But for the most part, the people who talk about capitalism being 'unjust' or 'crony' is the center-left.


Also, with having in mind that no one in capitalism is being forced and coerced to work for the capitalist, that another ethical/ moral topic.Do we need to have an individual take a gun and force laborers into factories, or do material conditions do the job 1000x better, since it's on a mass scale and without any violence?

It certainly isn't a mere ethics issue. The working class, provider for all, is dispossessed. Social production exists, but all of the means are privatized under the ownership of capital. We rely on each other, but thanks to capital and the state, we can't simply produce for all to enjoy. Instead we, as laborers, must continually sell the only thing we have, which is labor power, in order to feed and house ourselves and our families. It's the only way to have access to society's wealth. This is the essence of wage slavery.


I would say that your views are disgustingly dogmatic. I base my views reason and the falue of liberty. What's the point in liberating one self and others from an exploitative economic system, and then to accept the chains of various addictions as something "good".The point of ending the exploitative system is so we can produce directly according to need and head in a direction towards post-scarcity, allowing maximum leisure time and use of all the goods humanity has to offer. It simply makes no sense to tell workers don't produce x item for yourselves because someone happens to dislike the nature of the use value, for any reason.

There are far better ways of going about combating addiction. We don't need to mess with individuals' use of addictive goods (and that term isn't just limited to junk food, drugs, etc. think TV or video games or other psychological addictions), only expose all of the dangers and side effects of it and provide readily available means to cure addictions. We don't need more prohibition, it just doesn't work.

[fabian]

You said no such thing in that post
Are you really that stupid?

Quote: "Ya, it was a "mental revolution" that brought that about... not class struggle or anything, not a material revolution.. oh no. It was liberal academics... that's right "
Me: "The fact that the mentioned happened instead of a radical mental revolution is why..."

See- he said that no mental revolution happened, and I said it's a fact. It's not that my words are obscure, they just seem like that to you, couse you haven't turned your brain on.


No one cares, this forum is not for idealistic classical liberals; it's for revolutionary leftists
Classical liberalism is a revolutionary leftist ideology.


I doubt any Spanish communists of relevance gave a rat's ass for Rousseau and Locke.
I doubt that the Spanish communists influenced by the rationalist ideas of Ferrer i Guardia would talk like that about Rousseau and Locke, but nevertheless, many of the Spanish revolutionaries did practice ascetism where vices such as smoking, drinking, promiscuity, gambling, etc were looked down upon.


But, assuming that you claim to be inspired by classical liberalism, you do know it's viewed wrong/unethical to force people to live a certain way in classical liberalism?
Whereas there is nothing wrong in liberating them, being that liberty is one of the greatest goods. And as Rousseau put it- "liberty subsists on virtue". There's no liberty in being sick, or being an alcoholic, a gambler, crackhead or addictited to any other vice.


Many socialists and anarchists have been doing dope, having promiscuous sex, and all sorts of "vices." Doesn't make them any less leftist.
And advocating the oppossite does make one less leftist?

[Raúl Duke]

And advocating the oppossite does make one less leftist?

Never made that claim, but you have claimed that advocating for decriminalization and legalization for marijuana/psychedelics makes one a neo-liberal.


Classical liberalism is a revolutionary leftist ideology.

:rolleyes:

No, it's not.

[Revolution starts with U]

And you don't? You would abolish capitalism, yet no one coerces workers to work for the capitalists. So- you want to coerce people out of capitalism.

In fact they do, and is the foundational attribute of class struggle. Your understanding of capital is laughable, at best. By their very nature of being the "owners" of things they coerce the non-owners into submission and acceptance of the wage labor system.

So that's your argument? You're in line with the right wing that working class revolution is violent aggression, and not self defense?


Anyways, taking a baby or a demented person to the doctor's is not coercion.
Against their will? Yes

Those without reason and free-will should not have the right to liberty.
Yes, and only the elite ubermensche of society gets to decide what is "reasonable" and "free will."
1) I smoke weed and take lsd occasionally
2) I know and understand logic and reason better than you
3) Therefore, one can do drugs and still maintain reason and free will


Yeah, they were all for shooting dope.
The love of my life died from shooting dope you paternalistic fuckwad, one of my closest friends did as well, my best friend died in a crack deal gone wrong.
I've never done any of these things, crack or heroin. (In fact, when they were doing them, I felt much the same way. I was glad when she got sent to treatment against her will. I thought it would help. SHe came out and died within two weeks, after a year of being "clean." So fuck you) Being against the drug war in no way means you advocating doing the drugs. You're just a schmuck; a capitalist and a schmuck.

[fabian]

Well, the morality you're talking about is regulating of the actions of others outside of actions that infringe on another's safety, reputation etc. out of prejudice, subjective views, and such.
If a capitalist offers me a job, and I want to take it, how's that different from than a dealer offering me heroin, and I want to take it? I'm against drugs and I'm for regulating morality, you're against capitalism and you're not for regulating morality.


While there an indeed moral arguments for socialism, they don't make platforms because they are morals and get torn apart in debate.
Then get your arguments about morality in check.


But exploitation and oppression aren't moral arguments.
No? Why are they wrong?


You can prove the worker is exploited in production
But why is being exploited wrong? I even know people (workers, not capitalists) who know about the unpaid labor and the exploatation that capitalism is based on, and they have nothing against that.


Do we need to have an individual take a gun and force laborers into factories, or do material conditions do the job 1000x better, since it's on a mass scale and without any violence?
There is no coercion. You can take a credit and self-employ, or you can join a worker cooperative.



The working class, provider for all, is dispossessed. Social production exists, but all of the means are privatized under the ownership of capital. We rely on each other, but thanks to capital and the state, we can't simply produce for all to enjoy. Instead we, as laborers, must continually sell the only thing we have, which is labor power, in order to feed and house ourselves and our families. It's the only way to have access to society's wealth. This is the essence of wage slavery.
You just explained what wage slavery is, but not why it's wrong. As I said, I know people who want to be in wage slavery.



There are far better ways of going about combating addiction. We don't need to mess with individuals' use of addictive goods
Allowing people to freely use addictive consumables is nowhere close to combating addiction.


(and that term isn't just limited to junk food, drugs, etc. think TV or video games or other psychological addictions)
I'm primarily concerned about physical addictions here, but psychological addictions are to be fought, too, sure.


only expose all of the dangers and side effects of it and provide readily available means to cure addictions
I'm not for putting unhealthy and addicted people to jail, but making them do community service (as a direct recompensation to society for their unhealthy life, being that because there would be general health-care those living unhealthy would be basically abusing the service that is mantained by all) and attending lectures about the reasons why their behaviour is unwanted.

[Revolution starts with U]

If a capitalist offers me a job, and I want to take it, how's that different from than a dealer offering me heroin, and I want to take it?
Nothing makes them different.

I'm against drugs and I'm for regulating morality, you're against capitalism and you're not for regulating morality.

Except you're against drugs because they're "bad for you" and "constrict your free will" Tho we may offer that within our critiques of capitalism, we are against capitalism because it is "economically backward" and doesn't "sufficiently meet true demand."


No? Why are they wrong?

They're only morally wrong to those who view them as morally wrong. What they are, tho, is economically deficient.


But why is being exploited wrong?
Objectively it is not. It does, however, stifle production and the fulfillment of true need.

I even know people (workers, not capitalists) who know about the unpaid labor and the exploatation that capitalism is based on, and they have nothing against that.

Good for them. You obviously agree.

There is no coercion. You can take a credit and self-employ, or you can join a worker cooperative.

ANd proved it here.


You just explained what wage slavery is, but not why it's wrong. As I said, I know people who want to be in wage slavery.

It's not "wrong" idealist dummy.


Allowing people to freely use addictive consumables is nowhere close to combating addiction.

Attempting to stop them isn't either. So it's a good thing that's not what we're saying, and the champion of logic yet again reverts to a straw man. We are saying that the legislation against them is not only inneffective, but countereffective. We are saying the money could be better spent on treatment for addiction, rather than punishment for use (some of this stemming from the fact that use itself does not entail addiction, as you seem to be suggesting).
What we are saying is not that people should just go and use drugs willy nilly.


I'm not for putting unhealthy and addicted people to jail, but making them do community service (as a direct recompensation to society for their unhealthy life, being that because there would be general health-care those living unhealthy would be basically abusing the service that is mantained by all) and attending lectures about the reasons why their behaviour is unwanted.
What exactly is different from this than now? You're just punishing them a different way (btw, they already have to watch lectures about the dangers of addiction).

[fabian]

No, it's not.
If the Octobar revolution was a leftist one, so were the American, French and Haitian ones.


By their very nature of being the "owners" of things they coerce the non-owners into submission and acceptance of the wage labor system.
You can be self-employed or joing a cooperative, and not be exploited.


So that's your argument? You're in line with the right wing that working class revolution is violent aggression, and not self defense?
If you shoot first, it's aggression.


Against their will? Yes
They don't have a free-will.


Yes, and only the elite ubermensche of society gets to decide what is "reasonable" and "free will."
Seems like you have a medieval mentality (just not of catholic but a Muntzer follower), it's like all of the Enlightenment concepts escaped you during your schooling.


I was glad when she got sent to treatment against her will. I thought it would help. SHe came out and died within two weeks, after a year of being "clean."
First thing first- she's dead because of drugs, not bad treatment.
Secondly, your girlfrieng recieving bad treatment doesn't mean that drug treatment is bad and we should let people do drugs 'if they want do'. When drugs are abolished (instead of the corrupt bourgeoisie state fighting gangs for control of drug trafficking), people will not have to lose loved ones because of drugs.


Being against the drug war in no way means you advocating doing the drugs.
Well, you could say I'm against this "war on drugs" too, I'm for different methods.

[Raúl Duke]

so were the American, French and Haitian ones.

What makes it so, besides you saying "it is so," in this modern context?
All those revolutions established the rule of the bourgeoisie and capitalism; thus in the modern context they're not leftist ones: they established the system we have now that we want to overthrow.
The Russian one was an attempt to establish the rule of the proletariat and socialism

[Revolution starts with U]

If the Octobar revolution was a leftist one, so were the American, French and Haitian ones.

That's like saying "if wing chun and shaolin are a type of gung fu, so is karate."


You can be self-employed or joing a cooperative, and not be exploited.

You can't if that cooperative is an owner of capital.


If you shoot first, it's aggression.

So if someone sticks a gun in my face to rob me, and I shoot him first, I'm the aggressor?
Were I the now banned Franz I would say something like "gtfo capitalist."


They don't have a free-will.

You're such a sophist :lol:


Seems like you have a medieval mentality (just not of catholic but a Muntzer follower), it's like all of the Enlightenment concepts escaped you during your schooling.

Good answer. And by that I mean you answered nothing, and acted as if I should care about the European "enlightenment."


First thing first- she's dead because of drugs, not bad treatment.

I prefer to see it as a combination of the two. But hey, I'm not a moron so...


Secondly, your girlfrieng recieving bad treatment doesn't mean that drug treatment is bad
I never said it did, and in fact have said that treatment is a good thing.

and we should let people do drugs 'if they want do'. When drugs are abolished (instead of the corrupt bourgeoisie state fighting gangs for control of drug trafficking), people will not have to lose loved ones because of drugs.

You're going to "abolish" drugs?
This guy acts as if the European enlightenment that he fancies so much didn't happen largely in coffee houses, and that caffeine is an addictive mind altering substance. :rolleyes:
It's drugs that are bad to him, because all drug use causes addiction, not people's preset mental faculties.


Well, you could say I'm against this "war on drugs" too, I'm for different methods.
Ya, but you're still for a type of war on "drugs" not on addiction. Your prepunishing people for a crime you think they are going to commit; as if all users are addicts, and/or all addicts rob people for their fix. The simple fact is that it has been statistically shown that most addicts maintain full time jobs and families.

[fabian]

Except you're against drugs because they're "bad for you" and "constrict your free will" Tho we may offer that within our critiques of capitalism, we are against capitalism because it is "economically backward" and doesn't "sufficiently meet true demand."
Economical backwardness and meeting true demands? Both open for debate, have you read Hayek or Rothbard, or Keynes? Books and books about how capitalism is great. And being that you love credentialism, you should start with Hayek, he's a Nobel winner.


They're only morally wrong to those who view them as morally wrong. What they are, tho, is economically deficient.
So capitalism is not bad? Is capitalism economically deficient? Opened for debate and debate, I reffer you to the three economists I mentioned.


Objectively it is not. It does, however, stifle production and the fulfillment of true need.
Why is production or fulfilling true needs good? You do realize where this is going- you need some kind of moral basis for your views here.


Good for them. You obviously agree.
I talk and talk about liberating people without them asking for it, and you all go on an on about letting people doing "what they want", and I'm a supporter of exploatation? I just don't get why are you against capitalist with your "let people do what they want" moral relativism.


It's not "wrong" idealist dummy.
Then why fight against it?


Attempting to stop them isn't either.
Wow.. If I don't want you to fall down a cliff I accomplish that not by stopping you from falling in, but by letting you? Fantastic.
And you talk to me about logic.


We are saying that the legislation against them is not only inneffective, but countereffective.
And what should be done- decriminalization? Which increaces the use of drugs.


We are saying the money could be better spent on treatment for addiction, rather than punishment for use
Which is the same as buying mouth fresheners instead of stopping eating shit. And drugs are surely worse then shit.


What we are saying is not that people should just go and use drugs
That's what happens when you decriminalize.


What exactly is different from this than now? You're just punishing them a different way
If you don't see the difference between retributive and reparative punishing, that's your problem..


(btw, they already have to watch lectures about the dangers of addiction).
Today's education (including the one you're sentanced to) is beyond useless. People need to be rationalisticly educated, and together with rational views rationality in thinking and acting (asceticism based on stoicism, epicureanism, aristotelianism, or pythagoreanism/ platonism) should be promoted.

[fabian]

What makes it so, besides you saying "it is so," in this modern context?
They were revolutions against feudalism and monarchy- same as the Octobar revolution.
They were revolutions which established capitalism- same as the Octobar revolution.


You can't if that cooperative is an owner of capital.
In a cooperative you get the full product of your labour, being that there's no capitalist to take profits.


So if someone sticks a gun in my face to rob me, and I shoot him first, I'm the aggressor?
See, you do know what coercion is.


You're such a sophist
Do you want to argue that animals, babies, demented and intoxicated people have the same mental faculties as people with (unhampered use of) free-will and reason?


as if I should care about the European "enlightenment."
Cool, stay in the medieval mindset.


the European "enlightenment."
Just to point out that the European Enlightenment is just a restatment of Rationality, it happened in Anciet Greece, Ancient India and Ancient China.


I prefer to see it as a combination of the two. But hey, I'm not a moron so..
So, If she didn't do drugs, there was still a chance that she would be forced to go to bad drug treatment and die? As I said- she died because of drugs, not bad treatment.


I never said it did, and in fact have said that treatment is a good thing.
Only if they ask for it. If they don't, let em die, who cares..


You're going to "abolish" drugs?
No. I think society should.


Ya, but you're still for a type of war on "drugs" not on addiction.
Yes. Drugs cause addiction, not fairies.


as if all users are addicts, and/or all addicts rob people for their fix.
It's like saying that dangerous holes in the ground in dark areas should not be fixed and secured, we should just take that money for fixing holes and instead fund hospitals to treat the ones that fall in there. Or maybe fund free funerals for those who fall in and die.

[Revolution starts with U]

Economical backwardness and meeting true demands? Both open for debate, have you read Hayek or Rothbard, or Keynes? Books and books about how capitalism is great. And being that you love credentialism, you should start with Hayek, he's a Nobel winner.

Hayek and Rothbard, both influenced by Hazlitt who said, and I quote; "but need is not effective economic demand. Effective economic demand (need) requires both demand and corresponding purchasing power."
No serious theorist would deny that capitalism in no way even tries to fulfill real demand, rather than make a profit.


So capitalism is not bad? Is capitalism economically deficient? Opened for debate and debate, I reffer you to the three economists I mentioned.

As if I'm not familiar with my opponent (or regularly engage in debate on the Mises forums).


Why is production or fulfilling true needs good?
Are you asking why it's good to me? or just good objectively? Nothing is good objectively.

You do realize where this is going- you need some kind of moral basis for your views here.

Not really. I could just say "meeting true demand is unnecessary therefore I support capitalism." It wouldn't change my critique of capitalism (as you said yourself, some proles are aware of this and still like it).


I talk and talk about liberating people without them asking for it, and you all go on an on about letting people doing "what they want", and I'm a supporter of exploatation? I just don't get why are you against capitalist with your "let people do what they want" moral relativism.

I'm against capitalism because it economically insufficient. This has nothing to do with it being "bad" and everything to do with it being... again... economically insufficient.
I mean, I do have moral qualms about it, and will talk about them. But ultimately, if it came down to morals, I would just say "if everybody acted nice we'd live in a utopia."


Then why fight against it?

It runs counter to my interests.

Wow.. If I don't want you to fall down a cliff I accomplish that not by stopping you from falling in, but by letting you? Fantastic.

If you stop them against their will, in all likelihood they will just jump from the next available bridge... unless, of course, they get some good treatment for their mental issues. What this means is that the stopping or not stopping of them from doing it by force is irrelevant to actually fixing it. Only they can fix it, through treatment.
And, as a member of the Opiate Task Force in my county I can tell you that the key reason we don't have enough treatment facilities in this area is because we are spending far too much on enforcement.

And you talk to me about logic.

Ya, I do.

And what should be done- decriminalization? Which increaces the use of drugs.

Does it? Proof it. Source plz.

Which is the same as buying mouth fresheners instead of stopping eating shit. And drugs are surely worse then shit.

As are you, friend.
So now you are saying that punishment is MORE IMPORTANT than treatment? That treatment is akin to "buying mouthwash," and in fact it is the punsihment that gets to the cause of addiction?


That's what happens when you decriminalize.

Source plz.
Is it not apparent to you that as punishment has ramped up, so has addiction and use? What this should say to you, at the least, is that punishment does not deter use.


If you don't see the difference between retributive and reparative punishing, that's your problem..

I guess it is.


Today's education (including the one you're sentanced to) is beyond useless. People need to be rationalisticly educated, and together with rational views rationality in thinking and acting (asceticism based on stoicism, epicureanism, aristotelianism, or pythagoreanism/ platonism) should be promoted.
Ya, if people just acted "rational" we would have socialism, eh? (or what you prefer, market "socialism.")

[Raúl Duke]

They were revolutions against feudalism and monarchy- same as the Octobar revolution.
They were revolutions which established capitalism- same as the Octobar revolution.One was an attempt for socialism that went south, the others weren't.

Either way,
Leftists don't support revolutions for capitalism, they support revolutions for socialism.
Classical liberals aren't leftists, in contemporary times.

[Revolution starts with U]

They were revolutions against feudalism and monarchy- same as the Octobar revolution.
They were revolutions which established capitalism- same as the Octobar revolution.

The October Revolution was a bourgois revolution, then, wasn't it? I would safely say that is so seeing as how they implemented capitalism.


In a cooperative you get the full product of your labour, being that there's no capitalist to take profits.

You are the capitalist, exploiting yourself and workers as a class. You're still producing generalized commodities, meaning your producing for exchange value, ie capital, which means you're still working against the interests of the laborer. A market socialism full of cooperatives (probably wouldn't last long before it starts to revert to regular capitalism) would be like a system of slavery where the slaves whip themselves democratically. It's still a slave system.


See, you do know what coercion is.

Are you saying I am, in fact, the aggressor in that scenario?


Do you want to argue that animals, babies, demented and intoxicated people have the same mental faculties as people with (unhampered use of) free-will and reason?

I would like to argue that "free will" and "reason" mean anything more than "things I agree with." I know plenty of smart and rational people who use drugs, and plenty of sober people that are as dumb as bricks (case in point *points mirror at Fabian*).


Cool, stay in the medieval mindset.

Cuz that's logical; one is not a romanticist, therefore he is medieval. Nice one, champion of logic, at proving your fundamental misunderstanding of logic.


Just to point out that the European Enlightenment is just a restatment of Rationality, it happened in Anciet Greece, Ancient India and Ancient China.

Really? The same thing happened there? Source plz


So, If she didn't do drugs, there was still a chance that she would be forced to go to bad drug treatment and die? As I said- she died because of drugs, not bad treatment.

Or... just maybe... she never would have done that much heroin if she wasn't jonesing for a fix from 12 long months of forced sobreity, if the treatment had been better done (rather than a bureacratic "she was here long enough"), and/or if she had never done the drugs in the first place. She died because of drugs, this is true and something I will never deny. "Bad" and forced treatment certainly didn't help, and could be said to have made it worse.


Only if they ask for it. If they don't, let em die, who cares..

...


No. I think society should.

And how is society going to abolish "drugs?" Are they going to block out the sun, because it's just a weaker form of magic mushrooms? No coffee in your utopia? Little kids spinning in circles should be forced to sit and watch some lecture about the dangers of mind alteration?


Yes. Drugs cause addiction, not fairies.

Video games, gambling, and work are drugs?


It's like saying that dangerous holes in the ground in dark areas should not be fixed and secured, we should just take that money for fixing holes and instead fund hospitals to treat the ones that fall in there. Or maybe fund free funerals for those who fall in and die.
Admittedly, it is like saying that. The difference is that holes in the ground are something we can actually do something about. If "ground" had a "desire" to have holes, tho, this analogy would actually work.

[fabian]

I'm against capitalism because it economically insufficient.
Insufficient for what? For you to live in it and be able to afford housing, food, utilities, transport, health care, and recreation? Ancaps have tons of books that calculate that in capitalism everyone will live in abundance.


It runs counter to my interests.
So, if tomorrow you became a capitalist, you wouldn't be against capitalism any more?


If you stop them against their will, in all likelihood they will just jump from the next available bridge...
Then those kind of idiots should jump from the cliff or brigde and rid the worlds of their idiocy.


Does it? Proof it. Source plz.
Posted allready.
Drug consumption prevalence in Portugal (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/pt) for cannabis- 7.6% in 2001, when decriminalization occured, to 13% in 2007.
Drug consumption prevalence in Netherland (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/nl) for cannabis- 19.5% in 2001, 28% in 2007.


So now you are saying that punishment is MORE IMPORTANT than treatment?
No, I'm saying that tolerance is far worse then punishment.


Is it not apparent to you that as punishment has ramped up, so has addiction and use?
No, because this is not real punishment. The bourgeois state doesn't fight against drugs, but for control of drugs, and through it, the weakening of the working people.


What this should say to you, at the least, is that punishment does not deter use.
A punishment properly devised and enforcable does deter from breaking laws, that's basic criminology.

[Raúl Duke]

Drug consumption prevalence in Portugal (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/pt) for cannabisIt says for Cannabis...
No one gets addicted to cannabis.
Cannabis has little to no negative effects on health.
Cannabis has medical uses.
Cannabis has not killed a single person.
For hard drugs, the rate state about the same and your link says it decreased among the youth; also, in an article, due to the shift in policy the Portuguese are now able to focus more on stopping drug trafficking.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/01/16/drug_experiment/

Plus, I bet the Portuguese policy is putting more people in rehab than it did before.
The Portuguese model is not perfect, but it works; and I bet it'll work better than what you're suggesting.

[DinodudeEpic]

I find banning drugs to be very abortive and statist. And, conservatives are ALWAYS hypocritical. Unless, they are some sort of ultra-conservative reactionary. (A dead breed)

"Classical liberals aren't leftists"

Actually, I think they are leftists. The original definition of left-wing was the classical liberals of the French Revolution. You can say that my politics is basically a modernized version of Classical Liberalism adapted to the prospect of capitalism being an exploitative force and the increased speed of the modern world in relation with direct democracy.

Also, you are not a slave if you have no master. And, I don't see how your form of socialism prevent collective slavery anymore then market socialism. Finally, there are plenty of ways of having a bulwark against capitalist restorationism.

[fabian]

One was an attempt for socialism that went south, the others weren't.

Either way,
Leftists don't support revolutions for capitalism, they support revolutions for socialism.
Enrages fought for the abolition of the private propery and classles socity.


Classical liberals aren't leftists, in contemporary times.
I am.


The October Revolution was a bourgois revolution, then, wasn't it?
The French revolution was a revolution of the bourgois and the workers (both urban and rural).


I would safely say that is so seeing as how they implemented capitalism.
It implemented state capitalism.



You are the capitalist, exploiting yourself and workers as a class.
Exploiting yourself? Man, you really such at logic and knowing basic thing about the stuff you talk about. If you receive the fool product of your labour, you're not being exploited. Buying and sellin something doesn't constitute capitalism.


Are you saying I am, in fact, the aggressor in that scenario?
Why am talking to you? :crying: Of course not, idiot, he is, because he's pointing a gun at you. That's coercion. The thing that is not present in capitalism.


I would like to argue that "free will" and "reason" mean anything more than "things I agree with."
If you see not diffence with your mind and an animals, or no differnce between your mind when you're sober, and your mind when you're drunk, well, that explains alot.


Really? The same thing happened there? Source plz
I'll understand about Vaisheshika, Samkhya and Nyaya but have you heard of Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Stoicism? Confucius, Legalism, Mohism? Along with European Enlightenment. How many grades of school do you have?



Video games, gambling, and work are drugs?
And another great statement from our medival logic guy. Drugs cause addictions =/= drugs cause all addictions.


Admittedly, it is like saying that.
I cannot agree with something like that.


The Portuguese model is not perfect, but it works
Works for increasing drug use.


I find banning drugs to be very abortive and statist.
Nothing wrong about statism IMO.


And, conservatives are ALWAYS hypocritical.
I'm not.

[Revolution starts with U]

Insufficient for what? For you to live in it and be able to afford housing, food, utilities, transport, health care, and recreation? Ancaps have tons of books that calculate that in capitalism everyone will live in abundance.

Fundamentally based on "praxeology" and as such their conclusions are about as good to rely on as "astrology."


So, if tomorrow you became a capitalist, you wouldn't be against capitalism any more?

I can't say I would or would not. I recognize this, and as such don't plan on becoming a capitalist, and have a very specific plan in place, even if I "get rich," that assures I can live comfortably and not become a capitalist.


Then those kind of idiots should jump from the cliff or brigde and rid the worlds of their idiocy.

I would say the same to you, comrade.


Posted allready.
Refuted already, and I hadn't even read them. Polls are science? Nevertheless, I'll give them a looksie...

Drug consumption prevalence in Portugal (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/pt) for cannabis- 7.6% in 2001, when decriminalization occured, to 13% in 2007.
Drug consumption prevalence in Netherland (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/country-overviews/nl) for cannabis- 19.5% in 2001, 28% in 2007.



No, I'm saying that tolerance is far worse then punishment.
So what you are saying, then, is that punishment gets to the root of the issue, even more than treatment? We're not advocating for tolerance, regardless of whether that is an effect of decriminalization. We are advocating for freeing up unnecessary resources for better use in treatment.



No, because this is not real punishment. The bourgeois state doesn't fight against drugs, but for control of drugs, and through it, the weakening of the working people.
Fair enough, I don't disagree with that.



A punishment properly devised and enforcable does deter from breaking laws, that's basic criminology.
Yes, and in the case of drugs the punishment has, as of yet, not been property devised or enforceable. I would also make the case that it cannot be because unlike "holes" the ground does not have a desire to be holey.





The first general population survey on drug use was conducted in Portugal in 2001. A sample of 15 000 individuals representative of the Portuguese population was surveyed. The results revealed that 7.8 % of respondents aged 15 to 64 had used an illegal drug at least once in their lives (lifetime prevalence). The most-reported substance in this context was cannabis (7.6 % lifetime prevalence). The use of other illegal substances was less frequently reported. Lifetime prevalence was less than 1 % for cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, amphetamines and LSD. Gender differences concerning illegal drugs experimentation were found for all substances. A higher proportion of males than females had used these substances at least once (11.5 % vs 3.9 % for cannabis, 1.2 % vs 0.2 % for heroin and 1.5 % vs 0.3 % for cocaine). The second national survey, carried out among the general population in 2007, a sample of 12 202 individuals representative of the Portuguese population was surveyed. Results show that 12 % of respondents aged 15 to 64 had used an illegal drug at least once in their lives (lifetime prevalence). The most reported substance in this context was cannabis (11.7 % lifetime prevalence). Lifetime prevalence was less than 1 % for amphetamines, LSD and hallucinogenic mushrooms; for cocaine (1.9 %), heroin (1.1 %) and ecstasy (1.3 %). Gender differences concerning illegal drugs experimentation were found for all substances. A higher proportion of males than females had used these substances at least once (18.4 % vs. 5.2 % for cannabis, 1.8 % vs. 0.4 % for heroin and 3.2 % vs. 0.7 % for cocaine).
So basically pot use went up, hard drug use (except cocaine) remained largely static, and any increases could easily be chalked up to a sampling error. The only hard drug that went up was cocaine.


In 2006, results from national studies implemented in the context of school populations, HBSC and INME, reveal decreases in the consumption in this target population, respectively between 2002–06 and 2001–06, with cannabis being once more the drug with higher prevalence of use between these populations
Yup.


In all cases, the 2005 estimates were lower than those from 2000
Yup


The Portuguese legal framework on drugs changed in November 2000 with the adoption of Law 30/2000, in place since July 2001, which decriminalised illicit drug use and related acts, but maintains drug use as an illicit behaviour and also maintains the illegal status for all drugs included in the relevant United Nations Conventions. However, a person caught in possession of a small quantity of drugs for personal use (established by law, this shall not exceed the quantity required for an average individual consumption during a period of 10 days), without any suspicion of being involved in drug trafficking, will be evaluated by a local Commission for Dissuasion of Drug Addiction, composed of a lawyer, a doctor and a social worker. Sanctions can be applied, but the main objective is to explore the need for treatment and to promote healthy recovery.
Which sounds, ironically, like exactly what you are promoting :rolleyes:

The Netherlands study comes to much the same conclusions. I feel no need to repeat myself. Now there's this:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006,
Yup.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

I could go on, if you think my case hasn't been conclusively proven enough.

[Raúl Duke]

Works for increasing drug use.Hey nit-picking obfuscating thick-skulled dipshit.

Your own link says that lifetime prevalence for hard drug use stayed roughly the same, drug use in general (in particular hard drugs) dropped for youth, and an article mentions how the policy has allowed law enforcement to focus more on trafficking than before plus it makes it easier for addicts to check in for treatment since they no longer fear being criminalized/convicted.

Sure, it increased for cannabis, but so what? Cannabis is a medicine, non-physically addicting, and relatively harmless.

In light of the facts, which you ignore (while only focusing on the increases in Cannabis use), the Portuguese policy seems to work rather well plus it doesn't unnecessarily ruin people's lives over simple possession and use of drugs but actually facilitates help; people caught with drugs, particularly hard addictive ones, are put in rehab rather than jail. The fact you ignore these facts shows that you have the intelligence of a brick wall.


I'm saying that tolerance is far worse then punishmentTell that to the millions of ordinary people who are in jail just for simple possession of drugs.
Tell that the the Latino and Blacks who get racially profiled and sent to jail for drugs in NY even though its decriminalized (i.e. carries no jail time, etc) there.
Prohibition ruins lives, it's racist and classist, and unnecessarily increases crime; wastes resources that can be used for social services and for stopping real crimes.

[DinodudeEpic]

Nothing wrong about statism IMO.


I'm not.

I wouldn't call you a conservative. But, my main problem is that the government should not be trusted to ban drugs. I prefer if it was the initiative of the people. In fact, the War on Drugs has only increased drug usage here in the USA, as opposed to the Netherlands.

Now, I guess the harder drugs can be considered illegal, like how toxic waste can be considered illegal. Even then, that's stretching it. (It would be more for utilitarian reasons then a moral decision.)

Poverty is the number one cause of drug usage. Abolishing capitalism would do more to limit drug usage than any war on drugs.

There is no way that classical liberalism and statism can co-exist. Government should be limited, not extended.

Even then, classical liberalism is really just liberalism. Not to say that liberalism is bad. (Considering that I am one.)

[Revolution starts with U]

It implemented state capitalism.

Ya, it implemented capitalism. That's what I said.


Exploiting yourself? Man, you really such at logic and knowing basic thing about the stuff you talk about. If you receive the fool product of your labour, you're not being exploited. Buying and sellin something doesn't constitute capitalism.

I didn't say it did. I said "generalized commodity production" constitutes capitalism. And they're not "exploiting themselves" end sentence. They are "exploiting (as individuals) themselves as a class."


Of course not, idiot, he is, because he's pointing a gun at you. That's coercion. The thing that is not present in capitalism.

You said the agressor is the one who shoots first. Those are your words. He did not shoot first, merely pointed a gun. Are you denying that the bourg points guns at us to enforce the private property system?


If you see not diffence with your mind and an animals, or no differnce between your mind when you're sober, and your mind when you're drunk, well, that explains alot.

Where did I say that?


I'll understand about Vaisheshika, Samkhya and Nyaya but have you heard of Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Stoicism? Confucius, Legalism, Mohism? Along with European Enlightenment. How many grades of school do you have?

Explain. Don't list things and call me an idiot for not reading your mind. How are these eras the same?
(I'd be careful tho, this is bordering on European supremacy through the guise of "being civilized.")


And another great statement from our medival logic guy. Drugs cause addictions =/= drugs cause all addictions.

It is commonly agreed that to say "does not equal" we use the term != as it is far less confusing and easier to do that =/= (which would really mean equality divided by equality).

YOU: Well, you could say I'm against this "war on drugs" too, I'm for different methods.
ME: you're still for a type of war on "drugs" not on addiction.
YOU: Drugs cause addiction, not fairies.

Forgive me for seeing the implications of your statements; namely that you're for a war on addiction through a war on drugs, ie that the problem is more in the drugs than the addiction. Video games can be addictive. Are you going to now abolish them?


I cannot agree with something like that.
Obviously you didn't read the part where I said that although the words are similar, the situation is not analogues because the ground does not have a desire to have holes in it.

[fabian]

Fundamentally based on "praxeology" and as such their conclusions are about as good to rely on as "astrology."
I don't know of anyone receiving Nobel for work in astrology, whereas Hayek got Nobel for his work in economy. And you're the credentialist here, not me..


So what you are saying, then, is that punishment gets to the root of the issue, even more than treatment?
No. I'm saying proper punishment + proper treament > no punishment + proper treatment.


So basically pot use went up, hard drug use (except cocaine) remained largely static, and any increases could easily be chalked up to a sampling error. The only hard drug that went up was cocaine.
cocaine- less than 1 %
heroin- less than 1 %
ecstasy- less than 1 %
-decriminalization-
cocaine- 1.9 %
heroin- 1.1 %
ecstasy- 1.3 %


Tell that to the millions of ordinary people who are in jail just for simple possession of drugs.
They shouldn't have done drugs.


Tell that the the Latino and Blacks who get racially profiled and sent to jail for drugs
They shouldn't have done drugs.


Prohibition ruins lives
Stop shifting blame. Drugs ruin lives, not prohibition.


I didn't say it did. I said "generalized commodity production" constitutes capitalism.
Commodity production means making something in order to sell it. That doesn't constitute capitalism. Capitalism is defined by it's concept of private property (which includes the existence of profits). Have you heard of Proudhon and Mutualism? It's defined as "free market socialism".


You said the agressor is the one who shoots first. Those are your words.
I did not, and they are not. I said that in a revolution if you shoot first, you're the aggressor- because there is no direct coercion towards you in capitalism, that's the difference between capitalism and slavery.


Are you denying that the bourg points guns at us to enforce the private property system?
I'm denying that anyone is forced to work for the capitalist.


Forgive me for seeing the implications of your statements;
The implication of my statement was that you should treat the cause, not the consequence. Eg. why should you to gym to lose wheight, when you can just stop overeating. It's idiotic to say- there's nothig bad about overeating, I'll continue to do it, and then saying- I don't want to be fat, what should I do- I know, I'll go to the gym.


Obviously you didn't read the part where I said that although the words are similar, the situation is not analogues because the ground does not have a desire to have holes in it.
And people have a desire to be dependant of a substance and die of overdose?

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't know of anyone receiving Nobel for work in astrology, whereas Hayek got Nobel for his work in economy. And you're the credentialist here, not me..

That's because Hayek didn't work with praxeology, and as such did some ok economics works, as far as bourg economics go.
I also don't think Hayek ever got into the "capitalism would be utopic without government" line of thinking.


No. I'm saying proper punishment + proper treament > no punishment + proper treatment.

Yet if the punishment doesn't actually deter use, why does it need to be included?


cocaine- less than 1 %
heroin- less than 1 %
ecstasy- less than 1 %
-decriminalization-
cocaine- 1.9 %
heroin- 1.1 %
ecstasy- 1.3 %

And, as you failed to read my post again, all but cocaine can be attributed to statistical error, or as was previously said because of the lack of criminal stigma, more admittance of use. You can deny that people would do this, but I personally know many who would (people who use much harder drugs than I).
By the own study you have linked Portugal basically considers its policy a wild success.


They shouldn't have done drugs.

Duh. It's a good thing we locked up all those pot smokers, else their munchies would put a strain on the economy :rolleyes:


They shouldn't have done drugs.

That excuses institutional racism :thumbdown:


Stop shifting blame. Drugs ruin lives, not prohibition.

Both do, dick.


Commodity production means making something in order to sell it. That doesn't constitute capitalism. Capitalism is defined by it's concept of private property (which includes the existence of profits). Have you heard of Proudhon and Mutualism? It's defined as "free market socialism".

Not around here buddy. It's defined as capitalism, with cooperatives.


I did not, and they are not. I said that in a revolution if you shoot first, you're the aggressor- because there is no direct coercion towards you in capitalism, that's the difference between capitalism and slavery.

So I will not get criminal punishment (meaning punishment at the point of a gun) if I tresspass or steal? If I don't pay my taxes to a capitalist government, designed to maintain the privelage of capital, the government won't turn guns on me?


I'm denying that anyone is forced to work for the capitalist.

Because you're a capitalist.


The implication of my statement was that you should treat the cause, not the consequence. Eg. why should you to gym to lose wheight, when you can just stop overeating. It's idiotic to say- there's nothig bad about overeating, I'll continue to do it, and then saying- I don't want to be fat, what should I do- I know, I'll go to the gym.

The implications of your statement, in this analogy, is that we should ban food, and criminalize people who eat.


And people have a desire to be dependant of a substance and die of overdose?
No, they desire an alternate reality.

I think it's pretty clear you don't care about these people. You may "want" them to get better, but if they don't you "want" them to die in an alley.

[Revolution starts with U]

Listen to Cicero, a capitalist by your standard, rail on about the democratic parties trying to usurp private property. I guess if private property existed in Rome, then Rome was capitalist, right?

[fabian]

That's because Hayek didn't work with praxeology, and as such did some ok economics works, as far as bourg economics go.
I also don't think Hayek ever got into the "capitalism would be utopic without government" line of thinking.
As far as I know, he elaborated on the theory that capitalism will bring about spontaneous order..


Yet if the punishment doesn't actually deter use
Proper punishment does.


all but cocaine can be attributed to statistical error
Yeah, sure, live in your own fairytale.


That excuses institutional racism
That's just shifting blame. They're in jail because of drugs, not skin colour. Why more whites junkies aren't in jail is question concerning institutional racism.


Both do
No they don't. Eating unhealthy food destroys health, not the people telling you not to eat unhealthy foods.


Not around here buddy. It's defined as capitalism, with cooperatives.
All kinds of incorect definitions and stupidities are going around in your head.


Because you're a capitalist.
Because I'm not a reality-denying idiot such as yourself. No one points a gun a at you and forces you to work for him.


No, they desire an alternate reality.
They should do yoga.


You may "want" them to get better, but if they don't you "want" them to die in an alley.
No, I want them to get better, but if they don't, I want them to die in jail, because if they were on the streets there's a pretty good chance they'd harm someone else before they kill themselves with drugs.

[Revolution starts with U]

As far as I know, he elaborated on the theory that capitalism will bring about spontaneous order..

"The libertarian economist Walter Block observed critically that while The Road to Serfdom is "a war cry against central planning," it offers lukewarm support for a free market system and laissez-faire capitalism,[30] with Hayek even going so far as to say that "probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all of the principle of laissez-faire capitalism".[31] In the book, Hayek writes that the government has a role to play in the economy through the monetary system, work-hours regulation, and institutions for the flow of proper information. These are contentions associated with the point of view of ordoliberalism."


Proper punishment does.
And what is that proper punishment? How does your system differ from the American and Portugese ones? Be specific, don't just "it's not bourgois."



Yeah, sure, live in your own fairytale.
So not only do you not understand logic, but you don't understand statistics, or people, either...



That's just shifting blame. They're in jail because of drugs, not skin colour. Why more whites junkies aren't in jail is question concerning institutional racism.

So it's not racism that they arrest more blacks for drug use (which if I am not wrong implies that blacks use drugs more, in your opinion?). It's only racism that they don't arrest more whites?


No they don't. Eating unhealthy food destroys health, not the people telling you not to eat unhealthy foods.

It's not people telling you not to do it. Rather it is people banning the use or sale of unhealthy foods altogether. Should we ban unhealthy foods, because they cause bad health?


All kinds of incorect definitions and stupidities are going around in your head.

:laugh:


Because I'm not a reality-denying idiot such as yourself. No one points a gun a at you and forces you to work for him.
Except they implicitly do. Nobody explicitly points a gun in my face to force me into a job. They put the gun in my face to force me into the property system, which forces me, a propertyless laborer, into a job.



They should do yoga.

I do yoga and take acid.


No, I want them to get better, but if they don't, I want them to die in jail, because if they were on the streets there's a pretty good chance they'd harm someone else before they kill themselves with drugs.
So basically you only care about them as far as you can protect yourself from them?

Why don't you ask Dinodude what the official policy is on this site for market "socialism."

[fabian]

Should we ban unhealthy foods, because they cause bad health?
Yes.

As I said on another topic, I'm not going to respond to you any more, so you can go troll someone else.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes.

As I said on another topic, I'm not going to respond to you any more, so you can go troll someone else.

^ Conclusively proven wrong, buries head in sand. Makes accusations of "dogmatic person who doesn't understand the topic" that much easier to see.

[fabian]

Conclusively proven wrong
Yes, you have been conclusively proven wrong.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes, you have been conclusively proven wrong.


Youre still here? you said you were done so i stopped responding to you.

[#FF0000]

No. I'm saying proper punishment + proper treament > no punishment + proper treatment.

What, exactly, is the proper punishment for ingesting something you don't like?


They shouldn't have done drugs.

Having some weed is grounds for imprisonment, you think?


They shouldn't have done drugs.


I don't think you know what profiling means!


Stop shifting blame. Drugs ruin lives, not prohibition.

yeah dogg i'm sure drug cartels would be such a massive problem if drugs were freely available. I mean it wouldn't even be as bad if what you're saying wasn't objectively false -- the rise of organized crime in America was thanks, in large part, to prohibition.


I'm denying that anyone is forced to work for the capitalist.

I guess one could live in the woods if they wanted to, sure!


And people have a desire to be dependant of a substance and die of overdose?

I'm sure they'd much rather rot in prison with a mark on their record they can never remove. Mistakes should definitely cost people their lives!

[fabian]

Youre still here? you said you were done so i stopped responding to you.
You were never responding, you were just talking nonsense.


What, exactly, is the proper punishment for ingesting something you don't like?
Smthg I don't like? Nothing. Something not healthy- monetary fine, community service and attending lectures about health.


Having some weed is grounds for imprisonment, you think?
No. Neither it is an exuse to ***** about police racism when you get booked in a system where you know possetion will get you booked.


dogg i'm sure drug cartels would be such a massive problem if drugs were freely available.
If drugs were legal, then people miraculously wouldn't become dependant of drugs, drugs would become healthy and nobody would overdose. [/irony] Drugs ruin lives, not prohibition.


the rise of organized crime in America was thanks, in large part, to prohibition.
You don't fight something bad by allowing it. The existence of people fighting against something bad falsely or badly doesn't make fighting against somethig bad wrong.


I'm sure they'd much rather rot in prison with a mark on their record they can never remove.
They shouldn't do drugs in the first place.

[roy]

i bet if i take some drugs fabian will start making a lot of sense

[Yuppie Grinder]

Fabian, you're a fucking dolt.
Ain't nobody gonna keep me from getting hyphy or enjoying a whopper every once in a while.

[Revolution starts with U]

I guess one could live in the woods if they wanted to, sure!





No, those woods are owned. That's trespassing.

[Revolution starts with U]

Something not healthy- monetary fine, community service and attending lectures about health.

The really funny part is that this is pretty much the Portuguese model that he says doesn't work.

[fabian]

Fabian, you're a fucking dolt.
People who want to do are idiots, not rationalists who want to live healthy.

[#FF0000]

No. Neither it is an exuse to ***** about police racism when you get booked in a system where you know possetion will get you booked.

hahahah what are you even saying. if you're black you can't be offended if someone assumes you're a drug dealer?



If drugs were legal, then people miraculously wouldn't become dependant of drugs, drugs would become healthy and nobody would overdose. [/irony] Drugs ruin lives, not prohibition.


here comes the clue train, last stop you:

when drugs are illegal, it forces drug users to the fringe, making it more difficult for them to find help because they are basically rendered invisible or more fearful to even look for help because they're afraid of prosecution.


You don't fight something bad by allowing it. The existence of people fighting against something bad falsely or badly doesn't make fighting against somethig bad wrong.

Why do you want drugs illegal? I assume it's because you think drugs are harmful and prohibition would be a net good. But if prohibition causes more suffering than legalization, then what's the point? If prohibition means making it more difficult for people to get help with their addictions, the militarization of the police, and the rise of brutal organized crime syndicates, then why on earth would you opt for prohibition?


They shouldn't do drugs in the first place.

Doing drugs mean everything bad that happens to a person is justified!

[bcbm]

If drugs were legal, then people miraculously wouldn't become dependant of drugs, drugs would become healthy and nobody would overdose.

the addiction rate in the us today is the same as it was in 1912 when 'hard' drugs were legal. there wasn't a ballooning prison system and insanely expensive and deadly drug war then though. so which is better for society?

[Revolution starts with U]

the addiction rate in the us today is the same as it was in 1912 when 'hard' drugs were legal. there wasn't a ballooning prison system and insanely expensive and deadly drug war then though. so which is better for society?

Do you have a source for that, just for future's sake?

[DinodudeEpic]

Listen to Cicero, a capitalist by your standard, rail on about the democratic parties trying to usurp private property. I guess if private property existed in Rome, then Rome was capitalist, right?

Well, early capitalists did base their ideas of Roman values. Renaissance Italy, anyone? So, Rome is actually capitalist. Slavery is just part of the oppression that is Roman capitalism. (Rennaisence Italy was pretty much ruled by rich merchants, with the exception of the Papal States.) Remember that capitalism was used at first as a retrospective word, capitalists did not call themselves capitalists until the late part of the 19th century. (When the socialists started to become noticeable.)

Also, I did not associate myself with Fabian just simply due to rough economic similarities. I mean, considering that I want the legalization of drugs, with free rehab. welfare programs and find his suggestion that we should ban fast food absolutely ludicrous.

Nor do I support anything related to Hayek, of whom I despise, especially for his support for Pinochet. But, I also distaste his ideas on capitalism. (As I do for all 'libertarians'.)

Now, I do support an economic bill of rights. (Including something that abolishes wage labor and undemocratic businesses. AKA, abolish capitalism.) For me, free laissez-faire markets are a PRINCIPLE, and that we should limit government involvement as much as possible. But, some minimal government intervention is needed, mostly in the form of an economic bill of rights. Of course, this should be made by a constitutional and federal direct democratic government.

[Yuppie Grinder]

People who want to do are idiots, not rationalists who want to live healthy.
Many people care about more things than their health, especially young people. Valuing different things in their lives than you doesn't make people stupid. You're the dolt for not being able to understand cultural perspective a bit different from yours.

[Ostrinski]

fabian have you ever smoked marijuana?

[roy]

being obsessed with health is unhealthy. you could die at any time, y'know.

[fabian]

if you're black you can't be offended if someone assumes you're a drug dealer?
If you're dealing drugs- no.


when drugs are illegal, it forces drug users to the fringe, making it more difficult for them to find help because they are basically rendered invisible or more fearful to even look for help because they're afraid of prosecution.
Because the punishment of jail is not appropriate. With proper fight agains drugs, the only people who would be afraid of socities mechanism for fight against drugs would be the poeple who like and want to be addicted/ dependant.


But if prohibition causes more suffering than legalization, then what's the point?
Drugs cause the suffering. Legalization makes situation worse, improper punishment also makes situation worse; proper punishment (providing treatment, and punishing those rejectment treatment) is what I'm for.


Doing drugs mean everything bad that happens to a person is justified!
No, but the opposite isn't true either- that something bad happening to them because of improper fight against drugs makes drugs good.


the addiction rate in the us today is the same as it was in 1912 when 'hard' drugs were legal.
When heroin was marketed as a non-addictive morphine substitute and cough suppressant, and cocaine as a cure for morphine addiction? Yeah, that's comparable.


Many people care about more things than their health, especially young people. Valuing different things in their lives than you doesn't make people stupid. You're the dolt for not being able to understand cultural perspective a bit different from yours.
Valuing health is a cultural perspective?


fabian have you ever smoked marijuana?
I don't see the relevance, but yes.


being obsessed with health is unhealthy. you could die at any time, y'know.
If someone takes care of his health more that you do, doesn't make him obsessed. Anyways, I'd say that life, health, freedom, and happiness are good things to be obsessed with..

[Yuppie Grinder]

Freedom is a good thing to be obsessed with, eh?
How is someone free if they can't decide what substances enter their body?
That's the sort of contradictory shit liberals on television say, not calling you a liberal, just saying.

[bcbm]

Do you have a source for that, just for future's sake?

i saw it in this article (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/17/2754331/if-not-drug-legalization-what.html) from leonard pitts jr, i guess it was 1914 actually.


When heroin was marketed as a non-addictive morphine substitute and cough suppressant, and cocaine as a cure for morphine addiction? Yeah, that's comparable.

i don't think marketing strategy changes the drugs effects, or its potential for addiction.

[DinodudeEpic]

Freedom is a good thing to be obsessed with, eh?
How is someone free if they can't decide what substances enter their body?
That's the sort of contradictory shit liberals on television say, not calling you a liberal, just saying.

By liberal, you mean a social-democrat with liberal rhetoric?

As for me, I do fully support the legalization of drugs. Individuals should be, as you said, able to take whatever substances they want into their bodies. However, we should definitely have warning labels on the effects of these drugs. Just like how we have warning labels on chemicals that harm us. And, free addiction treatment centers for ALL drugs. (Including prescription drugs, alcohol, and tobacco.)

[Yuppie Grinder]

Well you could make a good argument that the idea of individual liberty is an irrational remnant of bourgeois thought, I just think he should be consistent.
You know what I mean by liberal, and don't pretend social-democracy isn't a part of liberalism.

[roy]

If someone takes care of his health more that you do, doesn't make him obsessed. Anyways, I'd say that life, health, freedom, and happiness are good things to be obsessed with..

you want to 're-educate' people who refuse to toe the vegan teetotaller puritan line. that sounds obsessive to me. also, i keep fit/healthy through competitive sport and apparently you wanna ban that too. i can't win.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well, early capitalists did base their ideas of Roman values. Renaissance Italy, anyone? So, Rome is actually capitalist.
Are you joking or do you actually think that makes logical sense? :lol:


Slavery is just part of the oppression that is Roman capitalism. (Rennaisence Italy was pretty much ruled by rich merchants, with the exception of the Papal States.)
Yes but neither republican nor imperial Rome were, nor by capitalists.

[DinodudeEpic]

Are you joking or do you actually think that makes logical sense? :lol:


Yes but neither republican nor imperial Rome were, nor by capitalists.

OK, I admittedly made a dumb mistake in terms of simplifying the Patricians as ancient bourgeois. And, assuming that early capitalists' classicism must mean that Rome is capitalist.

However, the big difference is that the Patricians have their status given to them via laws and birth, while the modern bourgeois merely give inheritance to their families. Nor were there organized businesses (democratic or not.) at the time of Rome.

Of course, we are talking about the fundamental basics, there are myriad of differences that I did missed in the previous post. But, I would be making pages of content about those differences.

[Revolution starts with U]

OK, I admittedly made a dumb mistake in terms of simplifying the Patricians as ancient bourgeois. And, assuming that early capitalists' classicism must mean that Rome is capitalist.

However, the big difference is that the Patricians have their status given to them via laws and birth, while the modern bourgeois merely give inheritance to their families. Nor were there organized businesses (democratic or not.) at the time of Rome.

Of course, we are talking about the fundamental basics, there are myriad of differences that I did missed in the previous post. But, I would be making pages of content about those differences.

Is that perhaps because there are pages worth of differences between both republican/imperial Rome and modern capitalism, in both function and design?

Not only were Patricians and the rest of the aristocracy not capitalist, they weren't even feudal. I think the best you can do is call them classic. The Reneisseance thinkers respected Romans and Greeks for their technical success and used them as propaganda against the church. I think it's a stretch to claim they were functionally trying to imitate them.

[DinodudeEpic]

Is that perhaps because there are pages worth of differences between both republican/imperial Rome and modern capitalism, in both function and design?

Not only were Patricians and the rest of the aristocracy not capitalist, they weren't even feudal. I think the best you can do is call them classic. The Reneisseance thinkers respected Romans and Greeks for their technical success and used them as propaganda against the church. I think it's a stretch to claim they were functionally trying to imitate them.

Just as there is pages of difference between modern capitalism and mercantilist Britain. Or the difference between modern corporations and ye ole small businesses.

Most of these differences are arbitrary things that would have came anyways through technology, even if the world was socially feudalistic.

The few actually systematic differences are the basic ones. Rome is just a variation on capitalism. If the Soviet Union can be called capitalism, even though it works differently from American-style capitalism, I think Rome can safely be called capitalist.

Note that we're referring to capitalism not as whatever system exist now, but as a concrete system. A vague 'rule of the bourgeois' is not a good definition of the word. Those with private property rule in capitalism. AKA, economic plutocracy. Rome just simply sanctioned the economic plutocracy.

However, Roman capitalism is probably unrecognizable from modern capitalism. Now, this is just what I think so far. To be honest, I never really knew that much about Roman society, so you should be better off going to a forum of historians who would accept your definition of capitalism. (Rather than a forum of Stalin-fanboys, armchair revolutionaries, and several ideological eccentrics. I'm in the latter.)

Of course, what in the word this has to do with drugs is the bigger question.

[Revolution starts with U]

Most of these differences are arbitrary things that would have came anyways through technology, even if the world was socially feudalistic.

For example?


The few actually systematic differences are the basic ones. Rome is just a variation on capitalism. If the Soviet Union can be called capitalism, even though it works differently from American-style capitalism, I think Rome can safely be called capitalist.

In what way? The USSR is called capitalist because it openly admitted it retained the capitalist mode of production.


Note that we're referring to capitalism not as whatever system exist now, but as a concrete system. A vague 'rule of the bourgeois' is not a good definition of the word. Those with private property rule in capitalism. AKA, economic plutocracy.
Are all economic plutocracy the same? In what ways are Old Kingdom Egypt and Shogunate Japan similar?

Rome just simply sanctioned the economic plutocracy.

Is that the only reason they are similar?

However, Roman capitalism is probably unrecognizable from modern capitalism.
In what way?

[DinodudeEpic]

For example?


In what way? The USSR is called capitalist because it openly admitted it retained the capitalist mode of production.


Are all economic plutocracy the same? In what ways are Old Kingdom Egypt and Shogunate Japan similar?

Is that the only reason they are similar?

In what way?

Organized companies complete with stocks. They would have made a similar system, where corporate ownership could be sold in chunks. Or how about the fiat standard? Or how about central banks?

What is a mode of production? I keep on hearing 'mode of production', although I haven't got a single clear definition of 'mode of production'.

Old Kingdom Egypt and Shogunate Japan are actually very similar. Both have hereditary aristocracies. Even though, that is Economic ARISTOCRACY. Not economic plutocracy.

Well, I defined capitalism as economic plutocracy. So, I guess it is purely just semantics. (I do not use Marxist vocabulary.)

In the ways that I mentioned above. I never read nor heard of tons of Romans working in massive blacksmiths crafting swords and armor. Nor did the Romans have a stock market. Nor was wage labor really that common. Of course, I'm just passing ideas around when I'm calling Rome capitalist. I honestly not sure.

Of course, WHY are we even talking about this?

And, I am not a Roman historian. And, Marx didn't even had a clear and concise name for anything before serfdom-styled feudalism. Even though, you can call Ancient Egypt feudalist due to the hereditary aristocracy.

[Revolution starts with U]

Organized companies complete with stocks. They would have made a similar system, where corporate ownership could be sold in chunks.
Would they have? Where is your evidence for this claim?


Or how about the fiat standard?
They did have that... but are you now claiming Ghengis Khan was a capitalist? (It's pronounced Jengis, not Gengis, btw... just to let people know.)


Or how about central banks?

I really don't think Romans would have called for a central bank as a large portion of the income of the aristocracy came from making loans.


What is a mode of production? I keep on hearing 'mode of production', although I haven't got a single clear definition of 'mode of production'.

How is production organized? That's the "mode" of production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production

The USSR maintained generalized commodity production, the boss/worker relationship, the owner/worker relationship, etc... It maintained the capitalist "mode" of producing things, it just put it in the hands of the state.


Old Kingdom Egypt and Shogunate Japan are actually very similar. Both have hereditary aristocracies. Even though, that is Economic ARISTOCRACY. Not economic plutocracy.

Are there any other similarities? Are you defining "capitalism" simply as "economic aristocracy?"


Well, I defined capitalism as economic plutocracy. So, I guess it is purely just semantics. (I do not use Marxist vocabulary.)

So you are saying that capitalism is the mode with which civilization was developed? Feudalism is capitalism?


In the ways that I mentioned above. I never read nor heard of tons of Romans working in massive blacksmiths crafting swords and armor.
I admittedly would not know the specifics of Roman metallurgy.


Nor did the Romans have a stock market. Nor was wage labor really that common.
Not very capitalist then is it? :lol:

Of course, I'm just passing ideas around when I'm calling Rome capitalist. I honestly not sure.

Of course, WHY are we even talking about this?

No worries :D It was necessary to counter your claim that Rome was "capitalist," as that is absurd.

And, I am not a Roman historian. And, Marx didn't even had a clear and concise name for anything before serfdom-styled feudalism. Even though, you can call Ancient Egypt feudalist due to the hereditary aristocracy.

Most scholars do not like to use the term "feudal" for anything but post Roman European society... and maybe Japan at times.

[DinodudeEpic]

Would they have? Where is your evidence for this claim?


They did have that... but are you now claiming Ghengis Khan was a capitalist? (It's pronounced Jengis, not Gengis, btw... just to let people know.)


I really don't think Romans would have called for a central bank as a large portion of the income of the aristocracy came from making loans.


How is production organized? That's the "mode" of production.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production

The USSR maintained generalized commodity production, the boss/worker relationship, the owner/worker relationship, etc... It maintained the capitalist "mode" of producing things, it just put it in the hands of the state.


Are there any other similarities? Are you defining "capitalism" simply as "economic aristocracy?"


So you are saying that capitalism is the mode with which civilization was developed? Feudalism is capitalism?


I admittedly would not know the specifics of Roman metallurgy.


Not very capitalist then is it? :lol:

No worries :D It was necessary to counter your claim that Rome was "capitalist," as that is absurd.

Most scholars do not like to use the term "feudal" for anything but post Roman European society... and maybe Japan at times.

Well, I'm trying to put feudalism as a scientific definition that is broad enough for the world, and to differentiate it more from capitalism. Now, I admit that I was wrong in calling Rome capitalist. However, I do not think that generalized commodity production characterizes capitalism. Rather wage labor and private property do. Which I both want to be gone.

So, I guess my previous answer to your allusion to Cicero is absurd, but I do think that it only refers to private property and not to wage labor. And, you listed a whole set of differences between Rome and modern capitalist economies.

Thus, you proved yourself to be wrong in saying that under my definition of capitalism that Rome would be included in it. And, I did the very same thing too. In fact, I proved my self to be wrong AND right, at the very same time.

I guess that we were too busy bickering about Rome to even realize WHY we were bickering in the first place.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well, I'm trying to put feudalism as a scientific definition that is broad enough for the world, and to differentiate it more from capitalism.
I'm not sure that's going to be possible, as there are large differences in pre-capitalist civilization across the world. I think the best you can hope for is something like "bureaucratic propertarianism" or something like that.... although many of them didn't really have functioning bureaucracy.


Now, I admit that I was wrong in calling Rome capitalist. However, I do not think that generalized commodity production characterizes capitalism. Rather wage labor and private property do. Which I both want to be gone.

Generalized commodity production must be included in the definition of capitalism as it is the one and only thing that previous systems did not have. That doesn't mean it wouldn't exist in a post-capitalist economy (tho it certainly couldn't in a socialist one). It just means it is a critical function of the capitalist system, without which it couldn't really be differentiated from previous systems.
Regarding private property, do the worker-owners of your cooperative retain the final say on their direction? If so, that's still private property, much like a corporation is private property even tho it is "jointly owned."

So, I guess my previous answer to your allusion to Cicero is absurd, but I do think that it only refers to private property and not to wage labor.
Yes but there was wage labor in Rome. It's not as if there wasn't "capitalism" (small c) in Rome. It's just the Rome was not Capitalist (big C).

And, you listed a whole set of differences between Rome and modern capitalist economies.

Thus, you proved yourself to be wrong in saying that under my definition of capitalism that Rome would be included in it. And, I did the very same thing too. In fact, I proved my self to be wrong AND right, at the very same time.

I don't follow :lol: