quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

im fond of quoting an old writing by john donne---one very famous part of it is "no man is an island entirely unto himself." the essence of the poem, though its about death, is how we are all caught up in each other.

Yes "no man is an island". Indeed.

I know it's a bit off topic, but I find it difficult to reconcile the wisdom of this saying with your far Right/near libertatian approach to politics. Libertarianism, with its emphasis on an extreme and uncompromising version of individualism, seems to me to stand in direct opposition to the logic of "no man is an island". Libertarianism seems to me to assert that every manperson is an island, and each of us sinks or swims according to that individual's own efforts and their own efforts alone.

So I will be intrigued to see how you reconcile this tension.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

im fond of quoting an old writing by john donne---one very famous part of it is "no man is an island entirely unto himself." the essence of the poem, though its about death, is how we are all caught up in each other.

Yes "no man is an island". Indeed.

I know it's a bit off topic, but I find it difficult to reconcile the wisdom of this saying with your far Right/near libertatian approach to politics. Libertarianism, with its emphasis on an extreme and uncompromising version of individualism, seems to me to stand in direct opposition to the logic of "no man is an island". Libertarianism seems to me to assert that every manperson is an island, and each of us sinks or swims according to that individual's own efforts and their own efforts alone.

So I will be intrigued to see how you reconcile this tension.

on top of what desi said in reply to you, I can refer you back to my first post on the thread and to re-read this one again.

the maximization of liberty stops when its actions and effects directly harm others.

at the same time, we somehow think the government (and by extension the non-drug using citizenry against its will) is not going to be heavily involved in this?

on a more personal level as concerns what I understand Ireland will be doing---I see this as government becoming a partner in the self destruction of people. libertarian does not mean libertine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Alcohol is far more dangerous/ ugly /and destroys more lives than marijuana ever will.
Crack /cocaine? not so much.

Au contrare...crack is about as pure as you can get coke. Without the adulterants it is a harmless and non addictive drug with no lethality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
im fond of quoting an old writing by john donne---one very famous part of it is "no man is an island entirely unto himself." the essence of the poem, though its about death, is how we are all caught up in each other.

Yes "no man is an island". Indeed.
I know it's a bit off topic, but I find it difficult to reconcile the wisdom of this saying with your far Right/near libertatian approach to politics. Libertarianism, with its emphasis on an extreme and uncompromising version of individualism, seems to me to stand in direct opposition to the logic of "no man is an island". Libertarianism seems to me to assert that every manperson is an island, and each of us sinks or swims according to that individual's own efforts and their own efforts alone.
So I will be intrigued to see how you reconcile this tension.

There is no tension. As long as you're not infringing on other people's rights, you're good. We do need each other, though, and that's where the "no man is an island" thing comes in. There is a difference between forcing people to support others, and allowing people to choose to support others. Charity does not come from government. It comes from an individual choosing to give.

Why do you see the extent of anyone's social obligations to be limited to "charity"?
To me, this seems to be a rather simplistic perspective. I've never heard of a society where this model represents the extent of obligations between an individual and society. Even in the most basic of societies the extent of mutual obligations between an individual and the social collective are multi-layered and complex, and extend far beyond "charity". To name just a few, self defence, the enforcement of social rules, education, healthcare systems, manufacturing economic commodities and socio-cultural productions spring to mind.
In the more complex societies of the industrialised West we inhabit, these mutual obligations are far more sophisticated, multi-layered and interdependent. Those mutual obligations are the very fabric of society - when one or both sides fails to deliver upon their obligations, the result can be as profound and far reaching as social collapse. Modern States operate upon the consent of their citizens, and when a significant proportion of citizens withhold that consent, the society is in danger of collapsing.
So my feeling is that the relationships and obligations between an individual and the society they reside in require a far more complex explanation than your model is capable of delivering.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Why do you see the extent of anyone's social obligations to be limited to "charity"?
To me, this seems to be a rather simplistic perspective. I've never heard of a society where this model represents the extent of obligations between an individual and society. Even in the most basic of societies the extent of mutual obligations between an individual and the social collective are multi-layered and complex, and extend far beyond "charity". To name just a few, self defence, the enforcement of social rules, education, healthcare systems, manufacturing economic commodities and socio-cultural productions spring to mind.
In the more complex societies of the industrialised West we inhabit, these mutual obligations are far more sophisticated, multi-layered and interdependent. Those mutual obligations are the very fabric of society - when one or both sides fails to deliver upon their obligations, the result can be as profound and far reaching as social collapse. Modern States operate upon the consent of their citizens, and when a significant proportion of citizens withhold that consent, the society is in danger of collapsing.
So my feeling is that the relationships and obligations between an individual and the society they reside in require a far more complex explanation than your model is capable of delivering.

Anything beyond charity is a reduction in liberty. How can you not see that?

Does government have a responsibility to clothe, feed and shelter people? I don't think they do, unless government is the cause of the lack of clothing, food and shelter. Does government have a responsibility to provide assistance in helping get people back on their feet, provide job training, etc.? No, it doesn't. None of those things are human rights. They are human needs. If you can not provide food, clothing or shelter for you and yours, government isn't responsible for providing those things. I am not responsible for providing those things to anyone, either. If you can not provide that stuff, you must rely on others. If it isn't a charity, but government, you are actually taking things that have been taken from others under threat of punishment; through coercion. That's theft. It's not theft, however, if I choose to donate to a charitable organization and that organization provides you with what you can not provide yourself.

So, a person may not be an island unto him/herself, but I do not have to be party to that person's assistance if I don't want to be. That's why there is no tension coming from the Libertarian ideology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Puh-lease, DS you can do much better than this. Your claim that "Anything beyond charity is a reduction in liberty" is arrant nonsense.
For instance take the realm of defence of the society/country/social collective. This is an undertaking best done by people acting co-operatively and delegating specialised tasks to specialised groups. Or education. Again a specialised task best done by trained specialists acting co-operatively. Both of these realms are "beyond charity" but both are essential for the preservation and flourishing of "liberty".

quote:

The idea that Got funding needed to carry out the tasks that the people delegate to the Govt is "theft" is not only nonsense, it is grossly inaccurate use of language. Theft is a crime, taxes (no matter how you might feel about them) are not a crime - they are legal.

quote:

Govts can be responsible for any task that the people democratically mandate them to undertake. There are no hard rules, no unbreakable covenants. If people charge the Govt with the task of ensuring that all citizens enjoy a certain minimum standard of living, then it is the Govt's role, obligation and duty to carry out that task. If people are unhappy with the Govt's performance they have the right to throw the Govt out, or elect another Govt with different policies. This is called democracy. This is a matter of pragmatism, not ideology.

quote:

It does seem to me that the more you try to gloss over the tension between libertarian philosophy and the fact that humans are social animals that inhabit social collectives {"no man(sic) is an island"} the deeper the hole you are digging for yourself. The two positions are mutually exclusive, contradictory, incompatible. Once we agree that humans are social animals living in social collectives, the primacy of individual 'rights' trumping all other rights in all situations is no longer tenable. Or to put that another way, this primacy can only be pursued and maintained at the cost of the social collective's survival. IOW it is a suicide option. Where's the "liberty" in that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Puh-lease, DS you can do much better than this. Your claim that "Anything beyond charity is a reduction in liberty" is arrant nonsense.
For instance take the realm of defence of the society/country/social collective. This is an undertaking best done by people acting co-operatively and delegating specialised tasks to specialised groups. Or education. Again a specialised task best done by trained specialists acting co-operatively. Both of these realms are "beyond charity" but both are essential for the preservation and flourishing of "liberty".

We aren't talking about schools or defense, though, are we? I thought we were talking about social welfare programs, in which case, my statements are true. Education, as important as it is, has been fucked up so well by government (not limited to any one party), that what our public education system is pumping out isn't as high a quality as it once was, in comparison to the rest of the world.

quote:

quote:

The idea that Got funding needed to carry out the tasks that the people delegate to the Govt is "theft" is not only nonsense, it is grossly inaccurate use of language. Theft is a crime, taxes (no matter how you might feel about them) are not a crime - they are legal.

You're so close, but you just can't seem to get a grasp of things.

quote:

quote:

Govts can be responsible for any task that the people democratically mandate them to undertake. There are no hard rules, no unbreakable covenants. If people charge the Govt with the task of ensuring that all citizens enjoy a certain minimum standard of living, then it is the Govt's role, obligation and duty to carry out that task. If people are unhappy with the Govt's performance they have the right to throw the Govt out, or elect another Govt with different policies. This is called democracy. This is a matter of pragmatism, not ideology.

And, we are no longer talking about the USA. This is what you were so close to, but couldn't grasp. In the US, there is a set framework for the Federal Government, that spells out what it's supposed to do and what it can not do. That is, what powers and authorities "We the People" and the "several States" delegated to it. Outside of those powers and authorities, it can not, Constitutionally speaking, act. Thus, taxation for anything beyond the delegated powers and authorities isn't unConstitutional. An argument can be made that it is against the law for the Federal Government to do these things.

quote:

quote:

It does seem to me that the more you try to gloss over the tension between libertarian philosophy and the fact that humans are social animals that inhabit social collectives {"no man(sic) is an island"} the deeper the hole you are digging for yourself. The two positions are mutually exclusive, contradictory, incompatible. Once we agree that humans are social animals living in social collectives, the primacy of individual 'rights' trumping all other rights in all situations is no longer tenable. Or to put that another way, this primacy can only be pursued and maintained at the cost of the social collective's survival. IOW it is a suicide option. Where's the "liberty" in that?

Your inability to understand my POV isn't of my doing, but by the limitations you have; intentionally taken on, or by societal upbringing. We are social creatures. There is no doubt about that. However, each individual has innate rights that extend as far as can be, unless they cross another individual's innate rights. If individuals do not have any liberty other than what is defined by the collective, is that really liberty? Does the collective have the authority to dictate to each and every member what that member can and can not do?

The US is not a democracy. There is only Constitutional authorities within which the majority can dictate. Outside of that, it's out of the Federal Government's purview.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Cities, hospitals, school districts, and factory management don't have to accept drug users as employees,

You do not live in the u.s. do you???No one in the u.s. can be denied employment because they use drugs.

and don't have to allow employees to be under the influence while at work.


If an employee has a cold and takes sudafed they are not allowed to work?

quote:

ORIGINAL: hot4bondage

Interesting discussion. Bounty is being inconsistent because he's conflating direct harm with indirect potential harm. Tweak rightfully calls him out on it, but throws limited government under the bus in the process. A perfect example of why liberty requires eternal vigilance. Thanks for keeping watch, Desi.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Ireland today announced plans to decriminalise possession of some drugs, and to open safe injecting rooms in main towns. This is a major departure from its previous punitive anti-drugs use laws. It is also, as far as I know, the first English speaking nation to adopt this new approach. The UK Independent reports:
"Ireland will move towards decriminalising drugs, including heroin, cocaine and cannabis, as part of a “radical cultural shift” it was announced on Monday.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, in charge of Ireland’s National Drugs Strategy, also told a lecture at the London School of Economics, that from next year drugs users will be able to inject in specially designated rooms in Dublin.

The minister said attitude to drugs need to move away from shaming addicts to helping them and emphasised there was a difference between legalisation and decriminalisation.

It would remain a crime to profit – from either the sale or distribution of illegal drugs – but drug takers would no longer be criminalised for their addictions.

“I am firmly of the view that there needs to be a cultural shift in how we regard substance misuse if we are to break this cycle and make a serious attempt to tackle drug and alcohol addiction,” said Mr Ó Ríordáin.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ireland-to-decriminalise-small-amounts-of-drugs-including-heroin-cocaine-and-cannabis-for-personal-a6719136.html

Ireland becomes the latest country to join the growing international trend away from treating drug use as a legal/policing issue and approaching the issue from a health perspective instead. In Europe Portugal Switzerland and Holland all operate relaxed drug use approaches. There are growing moves in Latin and South American away from the failed US-led 'War on Drugs' approach and towards implementing moves to legalise or decriminalise drug use. Several US States have legalised cannabis use with more predicted to follow. Even ultra conservative Iran is considering a new liberal drugs regime

The monolith of oppressive punitive zero tolerance approaches is showing more and more cracks as time go by. It is surely only a matter of time before it collapses and we rid ourselves of its onerous lunacy.

And good on Ireland which has gone from being seen as a conservative backwater labouring under an overdose of religion to a world leader on social justice and progressive issues! IIRC, O Riordan was also the politician leading the yes campaign in the recent successful marriage equality referendum. He seems very enlightened for a politician. What a refreshing change!

Your thoughts ........

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Cities, hospitals, school districts, and factory management don't have to accept drug users as employees,

You do not live in the u.s. do you???No one in the u.s. can be denied employment because they use drugs.

and don't have to allow employees to be under the influence while at work.


If an employee has a cold and takes sudafed they are not allowed to work?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Puh-lease, DS you can do much better than this. Your claim that "Anything beyond charity is a reduction in liberty" is arrant nonsense.
For instance take the realm of defence of the society/country/social collective. This is an undertaking best done by people acting co-operatively and delegating specialised tasks to specialised groups. Or education. Again a specialised task best done by trained specialists acting co-operatively. Both of these realms are "beyond charity" but both are essential for the preservation and flourishing of "liberty".

We aren't talking about schools or defense, though, are we? I thought we were talking about social welfare programs, in which case, my statements are true. Education, as important as it is, has been fucked up so well by government (not limited to any one party), that what our public education system is pumping out isn't as high a quality as it once was, in comparison to the rest of the world.

I'm not too sure where you got the idea that this discussion was limited to social welfare. I have already mentioned in passing a few matters well outside the scope of social welfare in posts above.

quote:

Whether you are talking about the USA or the entire West, the underlying point remains valid. Modern society is simply too complex for libertarian philosophies to work. The levels of skills, education and training, specialisation, sophistication and interdependency required just to keep society functioning are far too demanding for ultra individualist approaches to succeed.

quote:

quote:

quote:

The idea that Got funding needed to carry out the tasks that the people delegate to the Govt is "theft" is not only nonsense, it is grossly inaccurate use of language. Theft is a crime, taxes (no matter how you might feel about them) are not a crime - they are legal.

You're so close, but you just can't seem to get a grasp of things.

You really need to find a different term to 'theft'. I know that in your opinion, taxes are theft but sadly your opinion does not a fact make. OTOH if one took your opinion seriously, then all Govt would be funded by theft. Therefore Govt would be organised crime, racketeering, and the only ethical option would be anarchy. Are you sure that you have really thought all this through?

quote:

quote:

quote:

Govts can be responsible for any task that the people democratically mandate them to undertake. There are no hard rules, no unbreakable covenants. If people charge the Govt with the task of ensuring that all citizens enjoy a certain minimum standard of living, then it is the Govt's role, obligation and duty to carry out that task. If people are unhappy with the Govt's performance they have the right to throw the Govt out, or elect another Govt with different policies. This is called democracy. This is a matter of pragmatism, not ideology.

And, we are no longer talking about the USA. This is what you were so close to, but couldn't grasp. In the US, there is a set framework for the Federal Government, that spells out what it's supposed to do and what it can not do. That is, what powers and authorities "We the People" and the "several States" delegated to it. Outside of those powers and authorities, it can not, Constitutionally speaking, act. Thus, taxation for anything beyond the delegated powers and authorities isn't unConstitutional. An argument can be made that it is against the law for the Federal Government to do these things.

quote:

quote:

quote:

It does seem to me that the more you try to gloss over the tension between libertarian philosophy and the fact that humans are social animals that inhabit social collectives {"no man(sic) is an island"} the deeper the hole you are digging for yourself. The two positions are mutually exclusive, contradictory, incompatible. Once we agree that humans are social animals living in social collectives, the primacy of individual 'rights' trumping all other rights in all situations is no longer tenable. Or to put that another way, this primacy can only be pursued and maintained at the cost of the social collective's survival. IOW it is a suicide option. Where's the "liberty" in that?

Your inability to understand my POV isn't of my doing, but by the limitations you have; intentionally taken on, or by societal upbringing. We are social creatures. There is no doubt about that. However, each individual has innate rights that extend as far as can be, unless they cross another individual's innate rights. If individuals do not have any liberty other than what is defined by the collective, is that really liberty? Does the collective have the authority to dictate to each and every member what that member can and can not do?
The US is not a democracy. There is only Constitutional authorities within which the majority can dictate. Outside of that, it's out of the Federal Government's purview.

My feeling is that I understand your position perfectly well. I rather suspect that I have thought it through a little more than you and can see many of the flaws that escape your attention, or perhaps, the flaws that you choose not to see. Because you refuse to acknowledge these flaws, you are forced to resort to ludicrous claims such as "The US is not a democracy.".
But rather than quibble over details of constitutionality, why not respond to the substantive point I am advancing - the libertarian philosophy of ultra individualism is simply unable to address the complexities of a modern (largely) urbanised population, the vast majority of which is both unable to cope with, and incapable of the levels of self sufficiency needed for the libertarian dream to be realised.