-Caveat Lector-
nurev forwarded:
"The global perspective: a new opium war"
<snip>
While it is the responsibility of each nation to implement
their own tobacco control measures, governmental and
non-governmental organisations in the USA have a very
special responsibility:
The exemplar role - showing that 'It can be done.' The
message from the USA is that smoking rates can be
reduced and that litigation can have a major impact.
Von Mises stated in _Human Action_:
Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs.
But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government
to protect the individual from his own foolishness, no serious
objections can be raised against further encroachments. A good
case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and
nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to
the protection of the individual's body only?
Nurev opined:
This slippery slope theory is juvenile and stupid. The government
might as well repeal all murder laws. Because if the gov. can tell
you that you are not smart enough to know that you shouldn't kill
anyone, next they'll tell you you can't have sex with children. Or
even yell fire in a crowded theater.
MJ:
What you apparently do not understand is that one's free CHOICE to
utilize opium, morphine or tobacco do NOT violate another's 'right'
to his OWN life. I do realize freedom is a scary concept to many.
Nurev:
Freedom is not scary to me. Libertarians are scary to me. They
seem to be somewhat adolescent. Like you for example. The
above statement is scarily absurd in its lack of reality perception.
YOU MUST BE A LIAR to state that crack, heroin, alcohol, and
tobacco have no affects on people other than the users. I won't
even dignify your idiotic statement with obvious examples of its
absurdity.
MJ:
Your blatant contradictions aside ...
I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a Libertarian ... and your logical
fallacies do little to bolster your claim.
I have no knowledge of your use or non-use of any of the above substances
NOR do I know whether or NOT you are 'addicted' to Twinkies or similar.
How exactly does your use OR non-use effect me?
What YOU freely choose to participate -- so long as it does not violate
*my* right to *my* life -- is freedom. By instructing me that I may not
utilize tobacco products, you are violating my freedom to choose for
myself. Same goes for the other above vices, prostitution, gambling,
etc.
Von Mises stated in _Human Action_:
Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more
disastrous than any bodily evils?
Nurev opined:
No. It's not.
MJ:
Really? Look at how many idiots run rampant believing THEY know
better than others ... and desire the legalized use of FORCE
(Government) to enact legislation supporting their delusions.
Do tobacco users desire to limit the freedom of others?
Nurev:
You are just ridiculous man. You are implying that all tobacco users
are libertarian in attitude. Libertarianism has damaged your brain.
MJ:
No, the 'Libertarian' angle is your strawman. And your fallacies continue
as does your evasion of the topic.
Von Mises stated in _Human Action_:
Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing
bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and
from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies,
surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and
for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs.
Nurev opined:
Maybe bad ideologies like Von Mises' and Ayn Rand's, but otherwise
you can't compare what junkies do to reading bad books and seeing
bad plays.
MJ:
What provides *you* with the grand insight as to which ideologies
are *better* than others? Or that such is incomparable with 'junkies'
(whatever that might entail?
Nurev:
The ability to think.
MJ:
At which point will you begin utilization of this 'ability'? :)
Von Mises -- as expressed in the tobacco concern above -- favors FREEDOM,
are you stating this is a *bad* ideology?
Von Mises stated in _Human Action_:
These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded
doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether
ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects'
minds, beliefs, and opinions.
If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own
consumption, one takes all freedoms away.
Nurev opined:
I ask anyone reading this to do so out loud a few times and tell me
that it isn't an absurd and illogical propagandistic trick to play
upon the feeble minded.
MJ:
What exactly do you find so troubling? Do you not believe an individual
is 'intelligent' enough to determine his own vices?
Nurev:
Some are, but most are not.
MJ:
How -- exactly -- does one determine WHO will make this decision? Why?
I say let the individual decide for himself (ie. freedom).
Von Mises stated in _Human Action_:
The naive advocates of government interference with consumption
delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call
the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support
the cause of censorship, inquisition, intolerance, and the
persecution of dissenters.
Nurev opined:
A study in Libertarianism at it's most adolescent. And at Ludwig's
age too. How pathetic.
MJ:
Actually it is PURE liberalism -- in it's true state.
Nurev:
Whatever.
MJ:
Whatever?
MJ:
Why the fear of freedom and liberty?
Nurev:
I fear stupidity and and the legitimization of greed. Not freedom and
liberty.
MJ:
Liberty is an opportunity for doing good, but this is only so when it is also
an opportunity for doing wrong.
Kindly define greed.
Nurev:
I fear ideological theories that have no basis in reality. I have
actually lived
in the type of society you theorize about. I have seen people damage
themselves irreparably and even die because those who they lived with
weren't sure that they should step in and save them from themselves. It
was tragic and unnecessary. Life is more important than freedom. That's
what you clowns can't seem to understand.
MJ:
Further above you claim to favor freedom, but above you state your fears.
What basis do you propose to *limit* freedom? Who will decide these
limitations and why?
Why not simply permit each individual to decide for himself?
Nurev:
If you really want the kind of freedom you and Von Mises and other
Libertarians keep babbling about, then you must live alone so that
your freedom has no affect on others. But if your behaviors do affect
others, they have the right to limit what you do. It's in the nature of
being a social animal.
MJ:
How many 'kinds' of freedom do you imagine exists?
Short of violating another's property, no crimes exist which fit your
'limitation' desires above.
Regard$,
--MJ
In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security.
When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for
society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was
freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free.
-- Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
