Re: The self and multiple personality


<alex.j.k@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1119618160.776882.263710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> kames.smiths wrote:
>
> > ...I would dispute your claim that drug use 'is' a basic freedom. I
don't
> > think 'natural rights' exist, because it seems to me that rights are
merely
> > created and granted by people.
>
> That doesn't necessarily exclude natural rights, at least in some
> senses. For instance, property rights arise even among some animals as
> the evolutionary stable equilibrium of avoiding violence.
>
> At any rate, the implication that only might is right, that the
> state has the "right" to kill at will, organize hanging shows where an
> inconvenient minority can be sacrificed for the entertainment of the
> majority and similar activities, all this because the state currently
> has the might; is not something on which the state can base its actions
> consistently.
>
> Rather, people support the state because they see some sort of
> mystical aura around it, and hence in their eyes it derives its
> legitimacy from a source different than just might; and that is
> protection of some form of rights. Without this belief in its
> legitimacy, the state would collapse like so many others before.
> So arguing that just because the state is mighty it is also right is
> not a very reasonable line to take, even if you find yourself in some
> sort of mystical romance with the state and statist measures.
>
> And taking drugs is obviously part of one's freedom -- the question
> is only whether the state will violently dispose of this and similar
> freedoms or not.


I wouldn't argue that might is right etc. -- where did you get that from?
My argument is that intervention of one kind or another might be justified
if it can be shown that people are more likely to act in anti-social ways
as a result of taking drugs. Generally I'm opposed to interfering in other
people's lives, but if their actions are harming others then intervention
may be reasonable.

>
> > Perhaps you might argue that drug use
> > 'should be' a basic freedom, but then I think you would need to add
some
> > rider along the lines of 'as long as it doesn't result in significant
harm
> > to other people'. Presumably taking some types of drug is more likely
to
> > result in harm to innocent bystanders than taking other types of drug,
so
> > across-the-board generalisation is suspect. Also, consideration needs
to be
> > given, in my view, to the question of allowing 'the freedom' to
children
> > and the mentally ill.
>
> Most people are not children and besides, children have guardians in
> their parents. Taking care of children that don't have caring guardians
> is a worthy thing to do -- you could do it by donating to a charity
> that deals with such problems for instance -- but it seems quite
> foolish to dispose of the freedoms of functional individuals for the
> sake of abandoned children and the mentally ill.


I wouldn't have wanted my children, when they were younger, to have ready
access to drugs. I imagine a lot of other parents share this view. Are
you opposed to using sanctions to restrict the supply of drugs to
youngsters?

> >
> > There is a different set of issues about the practicalities of limiting
> > drug use. Obviously, it may be the case - as you claim - that trying
to
> > prohibit the use of drugs is often counter-productive: it causes more
> > problems than it solves. However, again I would be suspicious of
> > across-the-board generalisations.
>
> But focusing of the possible rather than the plausible in practical
> matters is a fool's errand. If you can give some plausible reasons for
> why drugs should be prohibited -- you've failed to provide a single
> one, other than the implicit one that drug users might hurt themselves
> -- in terms of "benefits to society" then we might get somewhere. But
> there doesn't seem to be any such plausible reasons except the official
> hysteria that is propagandistically drilled into the heads of the
> masses.


I believe drug-takers often hurt other people as well as themselves. We
could pursue this issue, if you wish.

I'd be interested to know more about the drug policy you would advocate.
The pressure group, Transform, has prepared a report that is critical of
prohibition, but it still argues for state intervention in the form of
various restrictions and controls similar to those used in connection with
the supply of alcohol and tobacco:

www.tdpf.org.uk/Transform_After_the_War_on_Drugs.pdf

Are you opposed to intervention of this kind?

Dave Smith


.

Loading