Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Drugs in the FSP  (Read 46000 times)

Jilks

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
    • Quanta Plus
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #60 on: October 09, 2003, 11:34:26 am »

Jilks--interesting idea.  My concern (actually in general, not just with your post) is that it seems to me that for a liberty-loving group of people, we appear to be rather inordinately interested in the passage of laws.

Yeah, I agree. I prefer social norms, but they can be hard to enforce. Protecting children and seeing that they have the possibility of having a good life without dramatic experiences is a high priority for me, which is why, in this case, I would rather see law.

Quote
Perhaps you want your children to have a say in how their lives are run, and as a parent you have the authority to grant them that experience.

Yes, when I have a child, I will want her/him to have his/her say, which would, of course, come into effect when she/he can speak.

Quote
If I, however, want to be a parental dictator--that is, if I feel that structure produces the best (happiest, or whatever my goal is) children--don't I have that authority as well?  

Depends, really. If you view children as property (too slave-ish for me), then, yes, you do have the authority.

Quote
The only way we can both be happy is to keep the law out of it, isn't it?

Depends, again. What if one thinks beating their children will make the child happy? (Yeah, not everyone is that sick, but hey.) I think a common ground can be met for both protecting children emotional and physically, with the help of children, and still leave much room for parents to have self-declared rule over their children without the parents feeling hindered by law/governement.
Logged

Jilks

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
    • Quanta Plus
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #61 on: October 09, 2003, 11:40:21 am »

Quote
My leaning is to a definition based on physical harm, while it appears that yours includes some definition of psychological damage (i.e., a classic "pain and suffering, give me $80 billion" claim).
For the most part, I don't agree with lawsuits based on "pain and suffering", but have you ever seen someone so withdrawn into a shell from verbal abuse that they flinched when you spoke to them?  I have.  Have you ever seen someone who has had nightmares that lasted for months because of something they saw?  I have.  I don't know about you, but I call that pain.  Just like physical pain, there are degrees of emotional pain.  These are obviously extremes and, IMO, much more severe than seeing my wife cry because she and her best friend had an argument.  It's still pain.  Maybe the possibility that ATR's escapades on the street corners will cause that kind of pain is so slim it's negligible, but it's still there.

Let's change the situation.  ATR is enjoying himself on the street corner with a few friends.  I jump up on a soapbox across the street and start preaching hellfire and damnation.  ATR gets offended because he feels insulted.  Since it's my right to preach on my soapbox, he needs to just ignore me and get on with his life based on what he says.  One of his friends, however, winds up with a mental image that I've planted.  That mental image haunts ATR's friend who starts having nightmares.  As the nightmares start crossing over into waking hours and reality becomes obscured by an obsession that I've caused, ATR's friend eventually is consumed with guilt to the point that the only perceived option is suicide.  Have I hurt that person?

I realize this is extreme.  I realize it's unlikely - particularly in group of 20,000 somewhat similarly minded people.  So lets ease up a bit.  Let's say I don't like you.  I start sending you hate mail.  I start threatening you.  Have I physically hurt you or damaged your property?  No, but I get so vicious that you're afraid to leave your house because I might be out there somewhere.  Have I hurt you?

Exactly! And don't forget, a child's mind is much more fragile in such a case. (What child hasn't been afraid of monster under the bed or in the closet?)
Logged

atr

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 858
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #62 on: October 09, 2003, 11:56:53 am »

Quote
My leaning is to a definition based on physical harm, while it appears that yours includes some definition of psychological damage (i.e., a classic "pain and suffering, give me $80 billion" claim).
For the most part, I don't agree with lawsuits based on "pain and suffering", but have you ever seen someone so withdrawn into a shell from verbal abuse that they flinched when you spoke to them?  I have.  Have you ever seen someone who has had nightmares that lasted for months because of something they saw?  I have.  I don't know about you, but I call that pain.  Just like physical pain, there are degrees of emotional pain.  These are obviously extremes and, IMO, much more severe than seeing my wife cry because she and her best friend had an argument.  It's still pain.  Maybe the possibility that ATR's escapades on the street corners will cause that kind of pain is so slim it's negligible, but it's still there.

Let's change the situation.  ATR is enjoying himself on the street corner with a few friends.  I jump up on a soapbox across the street and start preaching hellfire and damnation.  ATR gets offended because he feels insulted.  Since it's my right to preach on my soapbox, he needs to just ignore me and get on with his life based on what he says.  One of his friends, however, winds up with a mental image that I've planted.  That mental image haunts ATR's friend who starts having nightmares.  As the nightmares start crossing over into waking hours and reality becomes obscured by an obsession that I've caused, ATR's friend eventually is consumed with guilt to the point that the only perceived option is suicide.  Have I hurt that person?

I realize this is extreme.  I realize it's unlikely - particularly in group of 20,000 somewhat similarly minded people.  So lets ease up a bit.  Let's say I don't like you.  I start sending you hate mail.  I start threatening you.  Have I physically hurt you or damaged your property?  No, but I get so vicious that you're afraid to leave your house because I might be out there somewhere.  Have I hurt you?

Exactly! And don't forget, a child's mind is much more fragile in such a case. (What child hasn't been afraid of monster under the bed or in the closet?)

What happens when people think that their child's mind will be corrupted if he hears about the Free State Project. Or, to use Zack's example above, sees people playing soccer. We should definitely ban the FSP and soccer! It's for the children!
Logged

Jilks

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
    • Quanta Plus
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #63 on: October 09, 2003, 12:10:34 pm »

What happens when people think that their child's mind will be corrupted if he hears about the Free State Project. Or, to use Zack's example above, sees people playing soccer. We should definitely ban the FSP and soccer! It's for the children!

I like to think people have a little more common sense than that.
Logged

Reaper

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
  • Atheism cures religious terrorism!
    • The Reaper's Den
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #64 on: October 09, 2003, 12:17:01 pm »

Quote
The whole "I don't want my kids seeing that!" argument is a line of crap.
Forget the kids.  I don't want to see it, either.

Then don't watch!  You are free to look away, go somewhere else or even stand there and heckle if you got the stomach for it.

There simply is no right to not be offended.

As for the "psychological harm" argument.  It's just more BS.  People can't be held accountable for the feelings of others.  Nor can it be in anyway proven that viewing such a scene would be "psychologically harmful".  

If we're going to start punishing people for hurting the feelings of others during the exercise of their rights we're gonna need a LOT more jails.
Logged
Reaper
Proud member of the FSP's lunatic fringe!

"If we turn from battle because there is little hope of victory, where then would valor be?  Let it ever be the goal that stirs us, not the odds."

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #65 on: October 09, 2003, 12:27:27 pm »




What happens when people think that their child's mind will be corrupted if he hears about the Free State Project. Or, to use Zack's example above, sees people playing soccer. We should definitely ban the FSP and soccer! It's for the children!


I like to think people have a little more common sense than that.


You are saying that it is "Common Sense" to view sex as Nasty.  If it's the same as watching Soccer or the FSP, your argument evaporates.

I am not arguing (yet) that sex is not Nasty (who knows, maybe it is and I never noticed), all I'm asking for here is that the assumption be made clear, or that some real reason be given for "protecting" children from it.

Logged

Jilks

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
    • Quanta Plus
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #66 on: October 09, 2003, 12:37:37 pm »




What happens when people think that their child's mind will be corrupted if he hears about the Free State Project. Or, to use Zack's example above, sees people playing soccer. We should definitely ban the FSP and soccer! It's for the children!


I like to think people have a little more common sense than that.


You are saying that it is "Common Sense" to view sex as Nasty.  If it's the same as watching Soccer or the FSP, your argument evaporates.

I am not arguing (yet) that sex is not Nasty (who knows, maybe it is and I never noticed), all I'm asking for here is that the assumption be made clear, or that some real reason be given for "protecting" children from it.



I never said anything about sex being nasty. I only said some people would rather their children not see it. Whether they think it's nasty or not, is their choice, however I think they just find it inappropriate to conduct in public.

As for protecting children from it, that's stupid. Children will learn about sex. The end. It's just a matter of the parent, or general public, wanting or not wanting themselves of their children to see sex conducted in public.
Logged

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #67 on: October 09, 2003, 12:47:11 pm »



I never said anything about sex being nasty. I only said some people would rather their children not see it. Whether they think it's nasty or not, is their choice, however I think they just find it inappropriate to conduct in public.


OF COURSE you didn't say that Sex is Nasty, that's my whole point.  It seems that that is the basis for saying that one must pander to the irrationalities of those who don't want their children to see it.  I am certain that you are not saying that everything, no matter what, that some Parent doesn't want his child to see must result in the imprisonment of the one seen.

Aren't we talking about imprisonment here?  If not, if we're just shootin' the breeze about what some people like and some people don't like, it's been a real waste.

Logged

Jilks

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
    • Quanta Plus
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #68 on: October 09, 2003, 12:50:43 pm »



I never said anything about sex being nasty. I only said some people would rather their children not see it. Whether they think it's nasty or not, is their choice, however I think they just find it inappropriate to conduct in public.


OF COURSE you didn't say that Sex is Nasty, that's my whole point.  It seems that that is the basis for saying that one must pander to the irrationalities of those who don't want their children to see it.  I am certain that you are not saying that everything, no matter what, that some Parent doesn't want his child to see must result in the imprisonment of the one seen.

Aren't we talking about imprisonment here?  If not, if we're just shootin' the breeze about what some people like and some people don't like, it's been a real waste.

I'd hope we're not talking about imprisonment!
« Last Edit: October 09, 2003, 12:54:01 pm by Jilks »
Logged

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #69 on: October 09, 2003, 12:57:57 pm »



Protecting children and seeing that they have the possibility of having a good life without dramatic experiences is a high priority for me, which is why, in this case, I would rather see law.


Are you talking about some kind of Law that doesn't involve Imprisonment?

Logged

The Plano Texan

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #70 on: October 09, 2003, 12:58:47 pm »

[quote from Reaper Today at 01:17:01pm]
As for the "psychological harm" argument.  It's just more BS.  People can't be held accountable for the feelings of others.  Nor can it be in anyway proven that viewing such a scene would be "psychologically harmful".  
Quote
So if I get up and preach on my soapbox and your spouse/significant other decides to kill him/herself, that's okay with you.  Your significant other shouldn't have taken it so personal.
Logged

Jilks

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
    • Quanta Plus
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #71 on: October 09, 2003, 01:07:46 pm »



Protecting children and seeing that they have the possibility of having a good life without dramatic experiences is a high priority for me, which is why, in this case, I would rather see law.

Are you talking about some kind of Law that doesn't involve Imprisonment?

Yes. Hell, the law doesn't even have to involve fines! While almost(?) everyone here seems to go the "their your kids, you protect them, not the government" route, I think the government should have the ability to help. It doesn't have to help, but, I think, it should the option to help OR setup help, since the government should protect its people.  
Logged

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #72 on: October 09, 2003, 01:15:18 pm »



Yes. Hell, the law doesn't even have to involve fines! While almost(?) everyone here seems to go the "their your kids, you protect them, not the government" route, I think the government should have the ability to help. It doesn't have to help, but, I think, it should the option to help OR setup help, since the government should protect its people.  


Spooky.

Logged

BradKeyes

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 33
  • Why?
    • Active Mind Thoughts
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #73 on: October 09, 2003, 01:21:35 pm »

Well Zack already stole some of my thunder related to whether or not drunk driving should be outlawed, but I'd like to add a  few comments.

There is such a thing as clear and present danger - there may be a specific legal term for it too but I can't recall it. And drunk driving falls into that category. If you believe there shouldn't be laws against drunk driving because no one has been injured yet do you also believe:
  • It's OK to walk down the street firing off a machine gun as long as no one has been hit?
  • It's OK to walk down the street juggling a couple of vials of smallpox and as long as you don't drop one and it breaks open?
  • And even perhaps it's OK to walk down the street with a vest full of explosives and your hand on a trigger switch? You've done nothing illegal until you actually release the trigger?

-----

On a separate note, one of my pet peeves is people using the word harm in place of violation of rights. I know it's much quicker to say 'harming someone is wrong' and 'the role of government is to prevent people from harm.' Unfortanately the term leads to muddy thinking and miscommunication, especially when trying to educate other's about libertarianism.

There are many acts that are/should be legal and are even ethical that can 'harm' someone.

A few examples are:
  • Say someone invents a cheap device that creates power from static electricity in the air. This will put a lot of people out of business. These people will have been harmed.
  • If someone's boyfriend/girlfriend breaks up with them. They have perhaps been harmed.
  • If I fire an employee they are harmed.
  • When the Free State Project is successful, a lot of parasites will have been harmed.

Harm is not an issue, only Violations of Rights
Logged
Knowledge becomes wisdom only after it has been put to practical use. Knowledge must be gained by ourselves. Mankind may supply us with the facts; but the results, even if they agree with previous ones, must be the work of our mind. - Benjamin Disraeli

Reaper

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
  • Atheism cures religious terrorism!
    • The Reaper's Den
Re:Drugs in the FSP
« Reply #74 on: October 09, 2003, 01:22:03 pm »

[quote from Reaper Today at 01:17:01pm]
As for the "psychological harm" argument.  It's just more BS.  People can't be held accountable for the feelings of others.  Nor can it be in anyway proven that viewing such a scene would be "psychologically harmful".  
Quote
So if I get up and preach on my soapbox and your spouse/significant other decides to kill him/herself, that's okay with you.  Your significant other shouldn't have taken it so personal.

If they kill themself?  That's suicide.  

Unless your pulling the trigger how is that your fault?  
Logged
Reaper
Proud member of the FSP's lunatic fringe!

"If we turn from battle because there is little hope of victory, where then would valor be?  Let it ever be the goal that stirs us, not the odds."
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 ... 13   Go Up