When Can You Infringe On Others Choices?

[lehighguy]

Alcohol doesn't result in so many deaths. It is a poor substitute.

So what is the justification for legalization knowing that it will likely result in many people forfieting thier most important right, the right to live?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you going to answer the hypothetical, or simply ignore it because it would force you to alter an absolutist axiom in the face of a possible exception.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it would be obvious that my answer would be to allow it. The fact that you even asked the question is more telling than any response I would give, though. You're stretching as hard as you can to come up with some "edge case" where oppression can be justified, and the best you can do is this totally unbelievable scenario? Like I said, who would use such a drug? Only those that wanted to kill, and they don't need a drug to do that, anyway.

Here are some *interesting* questions:

For all practical purposes, the person chosing to take this drug is chosing to kill someone. Killing someone is a clear violation of their rights. Is taking the drug more of a violation?

Should someone that attempts murder and fails be dealt with the same as someone that successfully murders someone?

[ QUOTE ]
Acknowledging the possibility of government intervention increases the overall freedom/rights doesn't mean you have to believe it in all cases. It doesn't even mean you have to do it in 99.99999999% of the time. It is merely the acknowledgement of the possibility and the rejection of the absolutist axiom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once you give an inch, they take a foot.

[lehighguy]

I know you don't even believe prosecuting killers because that would involved police and courts. But lets not even go there.

The motivation behind the drug user is unimportant (to this debate, it might be important in other instances). Maybe its a good high. The motivation of the user doesn't really matter. Outcomes are really the only things that matter in policy.

"Once you give an inch, they take a foot."

This is an arguement saying that implementing a policy may lead to people implementing worse policies. It is not an arguement that a policy is itself bad.

Bringing us back to the original matter. In this "edge case" do you really believe your policy increase the overall amount of freedom/rights in the society. Are people's rights being violated more often/severely by society (includes government and individual citizens) under your policy then the alternative?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I know you don't even believe prosecuting killers because that would involved police and courts. But lets not even go there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with police or courts, or with dealing with killers. I have a problem with state-run police and courts.

[ QUOTE ]
The motivation behind the drug user is unimportant (to this debate, it might be important in other instances). Maybe its a good high. The motivation of the user doesn't really matter. Outcomes are really the only things that matter in policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree - the motivation doesn't matter once we're already in the situation you describe. However, it *does* matter when determining if your question is even credible to begin with.

How do you square your assertion that "only outcomes matter" with your position arguing for outlawing a drug that *might* lead to a murder?

What if I take the drug, fall into the murderous rage, but get incapacitated on the way to murdering someone (tazer malfunction, e.g.)? The outcome (which is all that matters) is that nobody got murdered.

[ QUOTE ]
"Once you give an inch, they take a foot."

This is an arguement saying that implementing a policy may lead to people implementing worse policies. It is not an arguement that a policy is itself bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

A policy's impact on future policy implementations is surely part of a thourgh evaluation of that policy's desirability.

[ QUOTE ]
Bringing us back to the original matter. In this "edge case" do you really believe your policy increase the overall amount of freedom/rights in the society.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I believe *your* policy decreases it. Your policy (outlaw the drug) is the one that restricts non-aggressive behavior. My behavior only deals with aggressive behavior (killing people).

[ QUOTE ]
Are people's rights being violated more often/severely by society (includes government and individual citizens) under your policy then the alternative?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. How could they be? Your system (outlaw both the drug and murder) outlaws two things, only one of which is disprespectful of others. I pursue only the thing that actually violates others' rights.

Since in your scenario, you want to imply that using the drug is effectively the same as committing murder, why even bother differentiating?

We differentiate because they are not the same thing.

Is the murder committed because of this drug more of a violation than the murder committed without this drug?

Does someone that intends to kill but fails because of chance, ineptitude, or positive outside intervention violate rights in the same way that a successful killer does?

Does intent with no action equal a crime? This is the core question.

What if the drug only causes 99.9% likelyhood that a murder will be comitted? 99.5%? 99%? 90%? 50%? What if in the cases where a murder isn't comitted, it magically cures cancer in a terminally ill infant? What if it causes a murder AND saves two cancer patients at the same time?

What if it makes everyone smart and happy and friendly and productive and peace loving and we get fuzzy bunnies and flowers and puppies forever, but only if everyone takes it at the same time, though 1% of users will die? Should we force everyone to take it?

Is a father being harmfully negligent to his children by cleaning his AR-15 in the garage?

Is a father being harmfully negligent to his children by baking out his house with opium, crack-cocaine, and weed smoke, intoxicating his children with the second-hand smoke?

Do you believe the Government should intervene in cases where parents are harmfully negligent to their children?

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]
Is a father being harmfully negligent to his children by cleaning his AR-15 in the garage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. In fact, he is probably doing them a great service if he takes the time to educate them about guns and how to respect them.

[ QUOTE ]
Is a father being harmfully negligent to his children by baking out his house with opium, crack-cocaine, and weed smoke, intoxicating his children with the second-hand smoke?

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely different scenario. Here the father is being negligent by "intoxicating" his children.



[ QUOTE ]


Do you believe the Government should intervene in cases where parents are harmfully negligent to their children?

[/ QUOTE ]

One role of government is to protect individuals and property from each other. Few would argue against the sexually abusive parent being dealt with harshly by authorities. In your drug example, it could be reasonably argued that the children are being harmed and thus the government should intervene.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Alcohol doesn't result in so many deaths. It is a poor substitute.

So what is the justification for legalization knowing that it will likely result in many people forfieting thier most important right, the right to live?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I read your post you mentioned the words 'violent reaction', if killing was mentioned I ignored it and concentrated on the aforementioned phrase. Alcohol is a fairly good example of that in my honest opinion, a percentage of people overindulge, and feel the positive benefits and then go on to have a 'violent reaction'. I am not suggesting everyone does this, I am just putting it across as an example of the type of drug you mentioned, also I believe alcohol is much more abused and over indulged in, in Europe than in America.

I wouldn't say there is any particularly important reason to allow it that overrides the importance of the right to live, however I would argue that alcohol is a good substitute, I don't know for sure but I would guess alcohol results in the deaths of more people than any other drug, even if a lot are accidental and not violently motivated killings.

Regards Mack

[bholdr]

how good is this drug? where can i find some?

seriously, IMO, the goal of good government in relation to drug laws should be to pragmaticaly provide the maximum possible degree of personal soverignty for citizens over their own bodies while maintaining a safe, functioning society; when the (social and economic) costs of prevention, recovery, and health care exceed those of criminalization, then a drug can and should be restricted or even banned.

another possibility is that every recreational substance could be taxed according to it's cost to society and government- a huge tax on heroin and crack to cover the damage incurred by those drugs, a smaller tax on drugs like mushrooms and marajuana, etc...

...the preceeding was, of course, a massive oversimplification.

[ QUOTE ]

What is the drug is some magic drug? It gives someone a level of happiness and contentment that borders on religous. The joy you get is greater then all the other joys you experience in live put togethor and has no adverse side effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

that IS an adverse side effect... have you seen 'brain candy'?

[lehighguy]

Without state-run police or courts there is no one to enforce anti-murder laws. One only needs to be more powerful then those that would wish to stop him and then he can act with impunity. Much like a warlord in a third world country.

"What if I take the drug, fall into the murderous rage, but get incapacitated on the way to murdering someone (tazer malfunction, e.g.)? The outcome (which is all that matters) is that nobody got murdered."

Individual crime morality or outcome is unimportant to policy. I'm not talking about what kind of prosectution should be used in such cases or how punishment is to be determined. I'm concerned with the policy effect on society not its implementation. That is why I specified in OP that enforcement and such were not to be concerns in the arguement. The morality of the drug user or the act of taking the drug is unimportant. Morality is far beyond the realm of policy.

It is known that use of the drug will result in deaths in the aggregate. I'm concerned with overall effect not specific cases. A gain for one persons freedom can be a loss for another when violence is involved. We are concerned with the net effect.

"A policy's impact on future policy implementations is surely part of a thourgh evaluation of that policy's desirability."

Granted. But you could still seperate the evaluation into one analyzing the policy itself and one analyzing the potential future policy initiatives that might result. We will focus on the former.

"No. How could they be? Your system (outlaw both the drug and murder) outlaws two things, only one of which is disprespectful of others. I pursue only the thing that actually violates others' rights.

Since in your scenario, you want to imply that using the drug is effectively the same as committing murder, why even bother differentiating? "

They are close to equiviliant, but not quite. There are still some that won't end up killing someone, but most will. No doubt some innocents will have thier rights infringed unjustly.

However, if we assume there is no way to stop someone who took the drug from killing then it is an inescapable fact that people will die as a result. The most aggregious loss of freedom.

In either case someone losses thier freedom. The determining factor is which policy choice results in a greater loss of freedom.

[[censored]]

I outlawed 2 & 3. If the use of 2 were restricted to people without children etc I could change my mind. Unfortunately that never seems to be the case.